Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics
Re-Posted Nov 9, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians just for once looked at what they have done and actually cared about the people and the future?
Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians just for once looked at what they have done and actually cared about the people and the future?
The attorney for the claimed whistleblower against President Donald Trump that the Democrats are desperate to try to hide his identity, Mark Zaid, defended his tweets calling for a “coup” against President Trump. Zaid claims to be nonpartisan but he is obviously not when he calls for a coup against the president of the United States. He wrote in early 2017 that a “coup” against Trump “has started,” and that “rebellion” would come, to be followed by “impeachment.” He is fully on board in the coup to overthrow Trump. He wrote back in July 2017: “We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters.”
Anyone else would go to prison for 20 years under the law (18 USC §2385) for this type of statement. He should be immediately arrested and indicted. Then perhaps we will discover who is the whistleblower. He is rejecting democracy and if his choice does not win, then overthrow the government is what he advocates. That is NOT what you would call American or any supporter of democracy. He is advocating tyranny which many would consider to be treason.
“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”
This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the refusal to reveal who is the whistleblower when his attorney was calling for a coup back in 2017, demonstrates that he is no way impartial. The Democrats are hiding the name for a reason and it violates every principle of Due Process. You have a fundamental right since the American Revolution to face your accuser. That is basic law!
Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company for corruption, newly released memos show.
During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
This is starting to appear as yet another made-up story to disrupt and influence the 2020 election. There is absolutely no question that Biden’s son was hired only for influence as was Hillary’s brother in Hati. This is a common practice in politics on both sides that should be outlawed. Biden has no place in government.
Earlier today Lawfare founder Benjamin Wittes sent a curious tweet appearing to defend former DOJ lawyer Lisa Page; who was previously assigned to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The tweet comes out of the blue; and there’s nothing currently in the public sphere or headlines about Ms. Page. It seems rather odd:
My hunch is Ms. Page may have spoken honestly to Horowitz or Durham about her experience as part of the ‘small group’. If accurate, and considering McCabe threw Page under the bus to protect himself against an internal investigation about his media leaks, Ms. Page’s current disposition may very well be adverse to the interests of the coup plotters. [Additionally, Ms. Page had no involvement with the FBI FISA construct.]
Michael Bromwich is Andrew McCabe’s attorney. Bromwich is a Lawfare member.
Perhaps the former Deputy Director is being positioned as the ‘fall guy’.
HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes has sent a letter to HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff formally requesting his testimony prior to the public impeachment hearings next week.
On its face this might seem like a stunt; and it might indeed be dismissed by Adam Schiff; however, at the heart of the issue is something quite serious and quite factual. There is mounting evidence the entirety of the Pelosi, Lawfare-Schiff proceeding is a collaborative event that includes the coordination with a CIA ‘whistleblower’.
Specifically because the issues in/around the originating ‘whistleblower’ have become a risk to the effort, and in a complete reversal from the original premise, Adam Schiff is now refusing to present testimony from the originating whistleblower. Nunes is now engaging in a process with the goal make the political coordination self-evident:
These closed-door sessions with Adam Schiff and his Lawfare-contracted legal aide, Daniel Goldman, were pre-planned; the process was designed last year. The current HPSCI legislative impeachment process, and every little aspect within it, is the execution of a plan, just like the DOJ/FBI plan was before it in 2016, 2017 & 2018.
After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare group members to become House committee staff.
Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then hired Douglas Letter as House General Counsel – all are within the Lawfare network.
The use of a ‘whistle-blower’ was pre-planned long ago. The agreements between Schiff, Lawfare and the CIA ‘whistle-blower’ were pre-planned. The changing of whistle-blower rules to assist the plan was designed long ago.
Adam Schiff and Daniel Goldman are executing a plan concocted long ago. None of the testimony is organic; all of it was planned a long time ago, long before anyone knew the names Marie Yovanovitch, Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland or Bill Taylor. All of this is the coordinated execution of a plan.
The anti-Trump members of the National Security Council and U.S. State Department were always going to be used. Throughout 2018 and 2019 embeds in the ‘resistance’ network were awaiting instructions and seeding evidence, useful information, to construct an impeachment narrative that was designed to detonate later.
When Bill Taylor is texting Gordon Sondland about a quid-pro-quo, and Sondland is reacting with ‘wtf are you talking about’, Taylor was texting by design. He was manufacturing evidence for the narrative. This was all a set-up. All planned.
When Marie Yovanovitch shows up to give her HPSCI deposition to Daniel Goldman with three high-priced DC lawyers: Lawrence Robbins, Laurie Rubenstein and Rachel Li Wai Suen, having just sent her statements to the Washington Post for deployment immediately prior to her appearance, Yovanovitch is doing so by design. All planned.
Earlier today President Trump held an extensive chopper presser with the White House press pool on a variety of topics. Here is the REAL NEWS transcript:
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: I just told them, “I’ve got to come over and see the fake news.” Let’s go. What do you have, John?
Q Mr. President, what do you think of the testimony of the deposition that has been released so far? And are you concerned about public hearings next week?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not concerned about anything. The testimony has all been fine. I mean, for the most part, I’ve never even heard of these people. I have no idea who they are. They’re some very fine people; you have some Never-Trumpers. It seems that nobody has any firsthand knowledge. There is no firsthand knowledge. And all that matters is one thing: the transcript. And the transcript is perfect.
Mark Levin, last night, on television — who is a great constitutional lawyer — he broke it down. He said, “What Trump said…” And he was respectful, he said, “President Trump.” “What President Trump said was perfect on the transcript. What he said on that telephone call with the President of Ukraine was perfect.” He said, “No other — nothing else matters. And what he said was perfect.” And he analyzed it — every line, every paragraph. It was not complex; it was perfect. Nothing else matters.
With that being said, every one of those people cancel themselves out. So what they do is they go all over Washington, “Let’s find 10 people that hate President Trump the most, and let’s put them up there.” Now, in some cases, they really turned out to be very much honest and fair. But in no cases have I been hurt. In no cases, that I see, have I been hurt.
Q And what do you expect for the public hearings next week?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they shouldn’t be having public hearings. This is a hoax. This is just like the Russian witch hunt. This is just a continuation. When you look at the lawyer for the whistleblower, I thought it ended when they found out that the lawyer was so compromised. I mean, the lawyer is a bad guy. So, you look at that. I thought that was the end of it. No, this is just a continuation of the hoax. It’s a disgraceful thing.
In the meantime, we’ve got the best markets we’ve ever had — stock markets. We have the best unemployment numbers we’ve ever had. We have the best employment numbers we’ve ever had. We have almost 160 million people — we’ve never been even close to that. So we’re doing it — but unfortunately, you people don’t want to talk about that.
Q On China, can you tell me whether a tariff rollback will be part of the phase-one China deal?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they’d like to have a rollback. I haven’t agreed to anything. China would like to get somewhat of a rollback — not a complete rollback, because they know I won’t do it.
But we’re getting along very well with China. They want to make a deal. Frankly, they want to make a deal a lot more than I do. I’m very happy right now. We’re taking in billions of dollars. I’m very happy. China would like to make a deal much more than I would.
Q Mr. President, will you endorse Jeff Sessions in his Alabama Senate run?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven’t gotten involved. I saw he said very nice things about me last night, but we’ll have to see. I’ll have to see.
Q Have you forgiven him for —
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t made —
Q — recusing himself?
THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t made a determination.
Q Have you forgiven him for recusing himself from recusing himself from the Russia investigation?
Q Have you forgiven him for recusing himself from the Russia investigation?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t even think about it.
Q Mr. President, so what do you say to the millions of people who just don’t believe you, that you have something and that your transcript shows that you did something wrong? What do you tell them?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ll tell you what, it’s a very simple thing. I had a very good call with the President of Ukraine. I assume that’s what you’re talking about. The call was perfect.
Now, they’re after — I have a second call, which nobody knew about, and I guess they want that call to be produced also. You’ve heard that, John.
So I have a second call — I had a second call with the President, which actually, I believe, came before this one. And now they all want that one. And if they want it, I’ll give it to them. I haven’t seen it recently, but I’ll give it to them.
But I had a call before this one with the President of Ukraine. I understand they’d like it, and I have no problem giving it to them. I have no problem giving it.
Q Mr. President, on the Bidens, did you ask Bill Barr or anyone in your Department of Justice to investigate the Bidens? And if not — if you didn’t ask them — why would you ask the President of Ukraine to do something you weren’t willing to ask your own Justice Department to do?
THE PRESIDENT: We are looking for corruption. We’re giving hundreds of millions of dollars, and we’re looking for corruption. And all you have to do is take a look at Biden, and you’ll see tremendous corruption, because what he did is quid pro quo times 10.
Q Did you ask your DOJ?
THE PRESIDENT: And let me just tell you —
Q Did you ask —
THE PRESIDENT: Be quiet.
Q — your DOJ?
THE PRESIDENT: Quiet.
Q Did you ask your DOJ?
THE PRESIDENT: Quiet.
Q It’s a simple question. Did you ask —
THE PRESIDENT: Quiet.
Q — your DOJ?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready?
Q Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I never spoke to him about anything. It’s up to Bill Barr. Bill Barr can do whatever he wants to do. But I saw the same tape on television. And the tape shows that Joe Biden is a crook. He’s 100 percent crooked. And the fake news, which is you and you — you don’t want to do anything about it.
Q We reported it.
THE PRESIDENT: His son walked out with millions of dollars from Ukraine, millions of dollars from China. He doesn’t know anything. He walked away with a stash. It’s a corrupt deal. It’s a corrupt enterprise. And if the press did it right, it’s a hell of a story.
Q Have you figured out where you’re going to sign the phase-one trade deal yet? Do you have a location yet?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re looking at different — assuming we get it. You know, I never like to talk about things until we have them. But it could be Iowa or farm country or someplace like that. It will be in our country, but it could be — it could be someplace like that, John.
Q Mar-a-Lago?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t think so. I think we’d go more in the farm belt.
Q Will you campaign against Jeff Sessions?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I won’t. I’ll see how it all goes. You have some very good candidates. Look, Alabama is a place where my approval numbers are very good. I think I won by 42 points. I love Alabama. I’m going to go watch a very good football game on Saturday, which is tomorrow, with LSU. That’s going to be great.
We’ll see what happens. He’s got — he’s got tough competition. I mean, you have — the football coach, Tommy, is doing very well. You have some — you have some good people running in Alabama. Let’s see what happens.
Q Do you have a date yet — do you have date yet, sir, for your meeting with Xi Jinping? Is it definitely going to be this year?
THE PRESIDENT: We’ll see what happens. Okay? We’ll see what happens. We’re getting along very well. They want to make the deal far more than I do. I will tell you, they want to make it far more than I do, but we’ll see what happens.
We’re taking in, right now — and you know — as a reporter of finance, you know what I’m saying. They’ve devalued their currency and they ate this tariff. We’re taking in billions of dollars in tariff money from China. I like our situation very much. They want to make a deal much more than I do, but we could have a deal.
Q Billionaire Leon Cooperman said this week that if you can’t change your behavior, you probably shouldn’t run again in 2020. What do you say to that, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, you’ve really shaped my behavior. Because from the day I came in here, I’ve had problems with phony stuff — like a phony dossier that turned out to be false, like false investigations that I’ve beaten. So a lot of my behavior was shaped by the fake news and by the other side. That was a lot of my behavior.
The fact is that we’ve created the greatest economy in the history of our country. With all of that stuff going on behind me, nobody else could have done it. Rush Limbaugh said he doesn’t know a man in the world that could have done what Trump did.
I don’t know Leon Cooperman, but whoever Leon Cooperman is — I know of him — he can have his own view. But in the meantime, I’m making him rich and I’m making a lot of other people rich, including the working man and woman. They’ve never done so well as they’ve done right now.
Our jobs are the best they’ve ever been. Everything about our economy is just about the best it’s ever been, including unemployment.
So I think, in light of all of the things going on — and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world, all of the bad things that went on. It’s called the “swamp.” And you know what happened and you know what I did? A big favor. I caught the swamp. I caught them all. Let’s see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going on, and nobody else could have done it.
On top of that, we have the best economy — the greatest economy we’ve ever had; the best job numbers we’ve ever had. African American, Asian American, Hispanic — the best ever. So, I think we’ve done a great job.
And tell Leon — who I’ve seen, but I don’t know — tell him congratulations, because he did very well with Trump.
Q Sir, how is the trade deal with India going on?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re dealing with India on a lot of different things. Prime Minister Modi is a very good friend of mine. You saw me at — in Houston. You saw me at the event — 55,000 people. It was great. And we have a lot of things happening with India. We have a very good relationship with India.
Q Are you planning to travel to India sometime?
THE PRESIDENT: He wants me to go there. I will be going, at some point, to India.
Q Sir, the people you —
Q Why did you acknowledge that your charity was using money for your personal and political purposes?
THE PRESIDENT: My charity was great. I gave a lot of money away. I was sued because, in New York, it’s a hornet’s nest, and they sue you for anything. And yet, on a really bad thing — if you look at that Clinton charity — they left her alone. That’s one of the reasons people leave New York.
I gave away $19 million. I took no expense. I took no rent. I took no fees. I took no nothing. A hundred percent of that money was given away, and I had to actually go through a process, for years, with New York. Because you know why? New York is a corrupt state. It’s a corrupt state. It’s a shame.
I gave $19 million away. And what happened is, instead of saying, “thank you, great,” they hit me with a lawsuit. And it was started by a man who had to get out because he beat up women. That’s the kind of a place it is.
Q Have you made a decision on vaping?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to be coming out with a very important position on vaping. We have to take care of our kids, most importantly. So we’re going to have an age limit of 21 or so.
But we’ll be coming out with something next week, very important, on vaping. We have a lot of people to look at — including jobs, frankly, because, you know, it’s become a pretty big industry. But we’re going to take care of it.
Now, there’s also — you know, when you mention vaping, you’re talking about e-cigarettes, you’re talking about a lot of different things. But we’re coming out with a big paper next week.
Q Does that mean that you may dial back on this idea of banning flavors, and instead raise the age?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re talking about the age. We’re talking about flavors. We’re also talking about keeping people working. And, you know, there are some pretty good aspects. But we’re coming out and we’re very close to a final report, John, and we’ll be giving it next week.
Q Because the industry does support raising the age, but they don’t like the banning of the flavors.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, we’re going to be raising the age. We will be doing that.
Q And can I just come back to — did the first transcript of the call with Zelensky from April 21st — it’s my understanding that the White House Counsel isn’t particularly keen to release that. Will you overrule him?
THE PRESIDENT: The — well, they don’t want to give all this information on a scam. It’s a witch hunt. I’m okay with releasing; it doesn’t bother me. I know what I said. It was fine.
But, no, they do want to have the second call, which is really the first call — the one before this. I had a call. I’m sure it was fine. I mean, you know, I have to — I make a lot of calls. But I have no problem releasing it. I’m very transparent.
Q So why not just release it?
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody is more transparent than I am. And if I wasn’t, and if I didn’t release it, it would’ve been a problem. Because the fake whistleblower said something about the call — many things that were wrong.
When the whistleblower came forward, he talked about this horrible call. It turned out to be a perfect call, as I say. Mark Levin said this was a perfect call. So, they lied. They lied. The whole thing is a scam. This is scam by the Democrats to try and win an election.
Now they want —
Q Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: Now they want my first call. I have no problem giving it to them, other than I don’t like giving calls to the media when I’m dealing with foreign nations. But I will give it if they want it.
Q One more point: Gordon Sondland said that at — Gordon Sondland said, at the beginning of September, he presumed there was a quid pro quo. Then there was a telephone call to you on September the 9th. Had he ever talked to you prior to that telephone call about what you wanted in Ukraine?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me just tell you, I hardly know the gentleman. But this is the man who said there was no quid pro quo, and he still says that —
Q He said that he presumed there was.
THE PRESIDENT: — and he says that I said that. And he hasn’t changed that testimony.
So this is a man that said, as far as the President is concerned, there was no quid pro quo. Everybody that has testified — even the ones that are Trump haters — they’ve all been fine. They don’t have anything.
But now they want the first call with the President of Ukraine. If they want it, I’ll probably give it to them. But they really want it badly. If they want it, I will probably give it to them.
I don’t like doing it because it sets a bad precedent, John. Because every time President Xi calls or somebody calls from China, if I speak to Kim Jong Un — are they worried about me giving the call? But in this case, because the press has been duped into a hoax — and, in some cases, they’ve really started the hoax — I will give the letter if they want it.
Q Mr. President —
THE PRESIDENT: But I do say this about that call: I think that’s a very revealing call.
Q Mr. President, you’ve been invited to Russia for the May Day parade. The Russians are eagerly awai- — are you going?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s right. I was invited. I am thinking about it. It’s right in the middle of our campaign season. But I am thinking — I would certainly think about it. President Putin invited me to the —
Q May Day parade.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s a very big — it’s a very big deal — celebrating the end of the war, et cetera, et cetera. It’s a very big deal. So I appreciate the invitation.
It is right in the middle of political season, so I’ll see if I can do it. But I would love to go if I could.
Q Bill Barr and the DOJ are not denying that you asked him to have a press conference to say that —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they’re not saying anything. Let me tell you: I never asked —
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Listen. I never asked him for a press conference. It’s fake news by the Washington Post, which is a fake newspaper. It’s fake. It’s made up.
And if I ask Bill Barr to have a press conference, I think he’d do it. But I never asked him to have a press conference. Why should I? You know why I wouldn’t do it? Because the phone call was perfect. Just read the transcript of the phone call. Nobody has to have a press conference.
I think if I asked him, and we — by the way, we confirmed. I never asked him. I think if I did ask him — I haven’t said this yet, and I don’t think I will; I’m sure I won’t. But if I asked him to have a press conference, I think he would.
With that being said, it’s fake news. They wrote a fake story. We’ve told them that before they wrote the story. But today, when you tell the press something, it’s meaningless because they write whatever — it’s all fiction. And I’ll tell you, they don’t have sources. You know what they do? They make it up. Not everybody — not John, not everybody. But they make it up.
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: (Inaudible.)
Q Are you going to release the Pence — are you going to release the Pence transcript?
THE PRESIDENT: What?
Q You say, “Read the transcript.” Are you going to release the Pence transcript as well, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: What they want is they want my first phone call. I had another phone call, and it’s a very important phone call. And it came to my attention last night that they want the first phone call.
Now, the problem I have in releasing the first phone call — because that was actually the second phone call. And it’s —
Q The one we saw is the second phone call?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. And it’s a perfect call. But they found out there’s another phone call. And that’s the first phone call. And they want it released and we’re considering that.
Q How about the Pence phone calls?
THE PRESIDENT: Which one?
Q The Mike Pence phone calls.
THE PRESIDENT: That I don’t know. I don’t know about any calls. I mean, I would — I have no problem. It’s up to Mike, but I have no problem.
Q Mr. President, you keep calling this a “coup” rather than an — you’re calling this a “coup” rather than an impeachment. So if it’s a coup —
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know what it is, really? It’s a crooked deal. This is like the fake dossier. This is like everything else.
These are crooked people. They lost an election and they lost it big. It was really a landslide, from the Electoral College standpoint. And they lost it big and they still haven’t recovered. And they’re going to lose again. And what they’re trying to do is weaken me, but it’s actually made me stronger.
And interestingly, if you look at the polls that just came out, my polls are up, the fundraising is through the roof. It’s never been this high. We just set fundrai- — because people are angry about it. And it’s made Republicans and people that vote for me — not just Republicans — really angry. They’ve really become angry, because it’s a hoax.
And I’ll tell you, the whistleblower — I call him the “fake whistleblower.” He gave a fake report of my phone call. And when I did it — all of a sudden, when I released that call, all of a sudden, everybody disappeared. The whistleblower disappeared.
What ever happened to the second whistleblower? Why isn’t the first whistleblower going to testify anymore? You know why? Because everything he wrote in that report, almost, was a lie. Because he made a phony phone call. My phone call was perfect. He made it sound bad. That’s why I had to release.
Now they — so the whistleblower is a disgrace to our country. A disgrace. And the whistleblower, because of that, should be revealed. And his lawyer — who said the worst things possible, two years ago — he should be sued, and maybe for treason. Maybe for treason. But he should be sued. His lawyer is a disgrace. A disgrace.
And then ask him this: Where is the second whistleblower? Right? Where is the witness that gave the whistleblower the information? They all disappeared because Adam Schiff is a corrupt politician. He’s corrupt. He made up a speech and he put my voice in it. He made up a speech. It had nothing to do with what I said. Adam Schiff is a corrupt politician that’s not giving us due process, not giving us lawyers. And despite all that, we’re kicking their ass.
Q Mr. President, why do Bill Taylor and Alexander Vindman still work for you?
THE PRESIDENT: Every one of those people testified absolutely fine for me. They’ve gone out, and they’ve gone out of their way to find the people that hate Donald Trump — President Trump — the most. They put them up there; everybody has been absolutely fine.
And they have — you know, I don’t even know most of these people. Many of these people, I’ve never even heard of. So what Crooked Schiff is doing — he’s a corrupt politician. What this corrupt politician does is he looks all over, tries to find people that don’t like Trump, and he puts them up.
We are winning so big. My polls are the highest they’ve ever been. I’m leading in all of the states — every swing state. The fundraising numbers just came in; they’re the highest, I think, in history. I don’t think anybody’s ever had — and I’ll tell you what, we are winning so big because we’re going along.
These are corrupt politicians, and that includes Nancy Pelosi. She’s a corrupt politician. She should go back to her district, which is horrible. It’s filthy. It’s drug-infested. Their stuff is being flown out to the ocean. It’s being wiped out to the ocean through their drainage system. You got to see what happening in San Francisco. Nancy Pelosi ought to focus on her district.
But these are corrupt politicians.
Q What’s your message to black voters? What’s your message to black voters? You’re going to Atlanta. What is your message to black voters?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to Atlanta. We have a, as you call it, black vote. But this is really — we’re doing very well with African American. I think a big factor is the fact that they’re having the best economic year they’ve ever had in the history of our country.
And we’re going there. We’ve been invited. And it’s going to be — I think it’s going to be fantastic.
Q What’s your reaction to Bloomberg entering the race?
Q Are you worried about Bloomberg? Can you beat Michael Bloomberg? He’s a real billionaire.
THE PRESIDENT: I’ve known Michael Bloomberg for a long time. If you go back early on, he had — he said a lot of great things about Trump. But I know Michael. He became just a nothing. He was really a nothing. He’s not going to do well, but I think he’s going to hurt Biden, actually. But he doesn’t have the magic to do well.
Little Michael will fail. He’ll spend a lot of money. He’s got some really big issues, he’s got some personal problems, and he’s got a lot of other problems.
But I know Michael Bloomberg fairly well — not too well, fairly well — well enough. He will not do very well. And if he did, I’d be happy. There is nobody I’d rather run against than Little Michael, that I can tell you.
Q The Democrats say that by keeping White House officials from going up to give deposition, that’s evidence that the White House is obstructing and could lead to an article of impeachment on obstruction.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they’re making it up. First of all, this whole thing is a phony deal. It’s a phony setup. When you look at the lawyer that got it started — the whistleblower lawyer, he got it started. It’s a phony deal. These Democrats are corrupt. Nancy Pelosi is a corrupt politician.
Shifty Schiff is a double corrupt politician. He took my words on the phone call — and they were so good. He totally changed them. He went before Congress. He made his speech before Congress. And in the speech, John, he said things that were horrible. It bore no relationship to the call. And then, later on, he was embarrassed.
Let me tell you something: Schiff is a corrupt politician, and our people know it. And they know it too, by the way.
Just so you know, we have the highest poll numbers. We have the most energy. I was with Mitch McConnell and a whole group of people last night, and I was with — actually, I was with leaders of faith and evangelical leaders. They said they have never — all of them — they have never had the energy that we’ve had and we have now in the Republican Party and beyond the Republican Party — people that were Democrats and they’re for Trump. And we’ve never had the poll numbers (inaudible).
Q But can — can you explain — can you explain, just so that people understand, why you are not allowing people like Mick Mulvaney and others to comply with subpoenas?
THE PRESIDENT: Because I don’t want to give credibility to a corrupt witch hunt. I’d love to have Mick go up, frankly. I think he’d do great. I’d love to have him go up. I’d love to have almost every person go up, when they know me.
What I don’t like is when they put all these people that I never met before — when they put the head of the Never Trumpers on the stand. And even those people were okay. They were fine. Those are the people. People I never even heard of. The people that I know, I would love to have them go up.
Now, the rest is up to the lawyers. I have to do what the lawyers say, to a certain extent. Not always, but, you know, to a certain extent.
THE PRESIDENT: Was it about privilege?
THE PRESIDENT: But — but I will tell you, I like to have the people go up. Except one thing: It validates a corrupt investigation. Adam Schiff — he’s a corrupt politician. He’s as corrupt as you’ll ever see — when he makes up my words, and reads fake words to Congress, and he acts so innocent. He’s a corrupt politician.
Okay. Thank you.
As we warned yesterday, about taking the propaganda of the Beijing panda mask…
Well, today President Trump pummels that narrative when he was asked about it during an impromptu press conference at the White House:
Q On China, can you tell me whether a tariff rollback will be part of the phase-one China deal?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they’d like to have a rollback. I haven’t agreed to anything. China would like to get somewhat of a rollback — not a complete rollback, because they know I won’t do it.
But we’re getting along very well with China. They want to make a deal. Frankly, they want to make a deal a lot more than I do. I’m very happy right now. We’re taking in billions of dollars. I’m very happy. China would like to make a deal much more than I would. (link)
[…] Q Have you figured out where you’re going to sign the phase-one trade deal yet? Do you have a location yet?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re looking at different — assuming we get it. You know, I never like to talk about things until we have them. But it could be Iowa or farm country or someplace like that. It will be in our country, but it could be — it could be someplace like that, John.
Q Mar-a-Lago?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t think so. I think we’d go more in the farm belt.
[…] Q Do you have a date yet — do you have date yet, sir, for your meeting with Xi Jinping? Is it definitely going to be this year?
THE PRESIDENT: We’ll see what happens. Okay? We’ll see what happens. We’re getting along very well. They want to make the deal far more than I do. I will tell you, they want to make it far more than I do, but we’ll see what happens.
We’re taking in, right now — and you know — as a reporter of finance, you know what I’m saying. They’ve devalued their currency and they ate this tariff. We’re taking in billions of dollars in tariff money from China. I like our situation very much. They want to make a deal much more than I do, but we could have a deal.
Beijing is proposing acceptance of U.S. demands, but only if that acceptance also delivers a removal of the tariffs that created their diminished status.
USTR Lighthizer isn’t stupid, he’s not going to give back two-years of hard won position.
While they hate it, Beijing internally also understands the U.S. position, this is why they consider Trump such a formidable adversary.
So the latest position from Beijing is to say “a phased reduction in tariffs”, in exchange for a “phased acceptance” of terms. From the Chinese position, they view this as their version of how they project the Western mindset of win-win into the negotiations.
None of the principals can say this directly; to make such an admission would be akin to losing face amid a history of thousands of years of specific Chinese strategy. So they send out spokespersons to promote such a proposal.
Anyone who has an understanding of the Chinese outlook should take all of the media reporting on this with a grain-of-salt. Beijing uses spokespersons as panda masks, and Team Trump know the distance between the Chinese principal and a Chinese spokesperson is part of their strategy. The unspoken space between words is more important than the words themselves. Inside this space is where cunning exists.
Regardless of the proposal, if it doesn’t come directly from a principal it doesn’t exist…. it is a false promise, or more panda mask.
This is what happened when the May 2019 talks collapsed.
Special trade envoy of Chairman Xi, Vice-Premier Liu He, quickly turned from a principal to a panda mask as soon as Beijing weighed in -and rebuked- Liu He’s negotiated terms.
Vice-Premier Liu He was stripped of his “special envoy” designation; and Beijing used the distance they just created with He as the justification for dismissing the May ’19 terms of agreement. That example was very typically Chinese.
The point is, Beijing does not want to accept any new terms that diminishes their prior one-sided benefit. China is communist, they don’t have a direct constituent group they are accountable to…. they are willing to incur suffering so long as they don’t lose position.
Losing less is not considered a position of benefit. China cannot even contemplate such a position; it just isn’t done. So any and all reporting on the discussions should be viewed through the prism that any deal is almost impossible to assemble unless, somehow, Beijing can view a deal as a win. That is a deal President Trump is not going to accept.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has a statement out today that underlines why so many global forces are against President Trump: “there are trillions at stake”.
(Reuters) – An interim U.S.-China trade deal that rolls back some tariffs has the potential to improve the International Monetary Fund’s baseline economic forecasts, which show the two countries’ trade war slowing global growth significantly this year, an IMF spokesman said on Thursday. (read more)
The baseline for the position of the IMF is the open secret amid global economic that few will ever discuss openly. The U.S. economy generates approximately $21 trillion in total activity; roughly 20 percent of total global economic activity.
When the U.S. maintains a $500 billion per year trade deficit with China, essentially we are sending China trade dollars Beijing then uses to purchase industrial products from the EU an other nations. Any reduction in the U.S-China deficit means China has less dollars to distribute; as an outcome the global economies have access to less U.S. wealth.
The process to retain U.S. dollars inside our own economy, President Trump’s “America First” economic agenda, is the heart of what most call the global economic slowdown. As a result the position of the IMF is better when the U.S. maintains a deficit, and the position of the IMF is weakened by any process that stops that exfiltration of wealth.
This is why so many countries are pouring money into Washington DC, and into any political activity within the United States, with the intention to derail President Trump’s policy. By using U.S. proxies, essentially lobbyists, the multinationals are trying to stop President Trump. There are trillions at stake.
An example would be China -and others- funding the Brookings institute. The Brookings Institute then funds the activity of the Lawfare group. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler hiring Lawfare members as contractors for their impeachment effort then boils down to China subsidizing the impeachment process. This is one example; however, there are many more.
Stopping or stalling ratification of the USMCA is another example. The USMCA supports more U.S. wealth and weakens U.S. investment in China. It’s all connected.
Simultaneously, from coast to coast those same multinational interests are funneling massive amounts of cash into any election that is part of the domestic “resistance”.
The U.S. Wall Street multinationals, globalists and multinational banks all hold a vested financial interest in stopping President Trump. The alignment of these interests is what gives rise to candidates like Michael Bloomberg. It is all connected.
Hundreds of millions from multinational corporations are pouring into the coffers of K-Street lobbyists who are in turn purchasing politicians to maintain the adverse position against President Trump. [Lobbyist Spending Here]
Once you see the strings on the marionettes you can never go back to the time when you did not see them….
So far, in 2019 (three quarters): SOURCE LINK
U.S. Chamber of Commerce = U.S. Multinationals on Wall Street. Tom Donohue.
Open Society Policy Center = George Soros.
Amazon = Jeff Bezos, Washington Post, CIA.
Business Roundtable = U.S. Multinationals on Wall Street.
Northrop Grumman = Syria war policy influence.
Boeing Co = Where did DOJ-NSD FISA Lawyer, Tash Guahar, go to work? {Go Deep}
…”there are trillions at stake”… “it’s all connected”…
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has announced the move of Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) to the HPSCI for impeachment proceedings. Jordan will replace Rick Crawford for open committee hearings during the House Intelligence push toward impeachment.
Jim Jordan is an articulate and eloquent politician who is very quick thinking on his feet during hearings. The democrats constructing the fraudulent impeachment proceedings do not like Jordan; and this move comes as political network operatives used Fusion-GPS to dispatch a media hit against Jordan in an attempt to block his security clearance.
With impeachment headlines absorbing most attention, there is a quiet background story happening in DC where re-authorization of the USA Freedom Act is needed prior to expiration on December 15th. Techno Fog points out the bulk NSA data collection and FISA(702) surveillance programs are part of this reauthorization.
Just yesterday, November 6th, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the reauthorization. “Senators expressed their displeasure Wednesday with the Trump administration’s inability to answer questions about the National Security Agency’s collection of data records” (link). Which begs the question:
Is the current Inspector General report on FISA abuse being delayed due to the need for congress to reauthorize the very same programs the IG is about to criticize?
For context to this question, and considering the potential for some surprising revelations within the IG report on FISA, it is worth noting the Office of the Director of National Intelligence held back the the findings of FISA Judge James Boasberg that strongly criticized the FISA-702 process for a year.
The Judge Boasberg report was written in September of 2018 but not released (redacted) until last month.
FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons. We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg. However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.
Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence. Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.
Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer. What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]
With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes. However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises. It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.
Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop. Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction. The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI. Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.
One of the weird aspects to both Collyer and Boasberg is that both FISC judges did not ever seek to ask the “why” question: why are all these unauthorized database searches taking place? Instead, both judges focus on process issues and technical procedural questions, seemingly from a position that all unauthorized searches were done without malicious intent.
Accepting that neither judge had the purpose of benefit to overlay any other information upon their FISA review, their lack of curiosity is not necessarily a flaw but rather a feature of a very compartmentalized problem.
Boasberg and Collyer are only looking at one set of data-points all centered around FISA(702) search queries. Additionally, the scale of overall annual database searches outlined by Boasberg extends well over three million queries by the FBI and thousands of anonymous users; and the oversight only covers a sub-set of around ten percent.
As a result of the number of users with database access; and as Boasberg notes in his declassified opinion there is no consistent application of audit-trails or audit-logs; and worse yet, users don’t have to explain “why”, so there’s no FISC digging into “why”; the process is a bureaucratic FUBAR from a compliance standpoint; perhaps that’s by design.
All of that said, and accepting the FISC review is not engaged in the ‘why’, here’s the part where seemingly disparate dots start to connect and things are concerning.
REMINDER from the Mueller Report:
My strong hunch is that behind this process we would find the reason why the ‘Steele Dossier” was so relevant to Mueller. You see, investigating the dossier made the 2017 Mueller investigation an extension of a 2016 counterintelligence investigation and not a criminal investigation (later, those were spun off).
By maintaining the counterintelligence process for Mueller, the FBI was able to continue exploiting the NSA database as a FISA(702) tool for their investigation. The foreign actors played a key role in this process. So long as the Mueller investigation was targeting foreign actors they could collect downstream evidence on the “702” (American persons) returns.
In essence, the “small group” could stretch the NSA database rules to conduct electronic warrantless searches and massive electronic surveillance on targets direct (“to/from”) and indirect (downstream).
The violations that Boasberg is identifying (March 2017 through March 2018) must also include FISA database searches conducted by Mueller’s FBI team. It is all within the same system of electronic surveillance. The pattern, frequency and specifics of the Boasberg report are identical to the 2017 Rosemary Collyer report. Same violations. Same processes.
Against what we see more visible every day; and thinking about how corrupt we already know the Mueller investigation to be; now consider that without going to federal courts to gain legal authority, warrants, taps etc…. using their database access Mueller’s team could continue to exploit the FISA(702) process.
They could gather material for their criminal cases through the NSA database and then transfer those results to their spun off prosecutions.
That’s why the Steele Dossier would be so important. The Dossier formed the basis to continue making the Mueller investigation a counterintelligence operation, Title-I authority. Without the Dossier creating the foreign construct, Mueller’s team would have had to follow Title-III.
There is a better than strong possibility the Mueller team monitored all of their targets, extracted the evidence they needed, transferred it to prosecutors and proceeded to construct cases. They didn’t need too much actual investigation because: (a) they knew the Russian-collusion/conspiracy was false; and (2) they could just access the NSA database and pull all the material they needed.
My hunch is all of this exploitation is why ODNI Dan Coats sat on this Boasberg ruling for a year. Boasberg presented this opinion in October 2018, it wasn’t released until October 2019. That could also be a motive why Dan Coats left right before Boasberg’s opinion was released. Perhaps IC interests did not want anyone putting 2+2 together if this judicial review was released during the ongoing Mueller probe.
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate the Steele Dossier in the second scope memo (August 2017). If these suspicions are accurate, the reason Mueller wanted the dossier included would be to maintain Mueller’s investigation as a counterintelligence operation. [An extension of Crossfire Hurricane] As a result, all previous FBI exploits using FISA(702) database searches would be authorized.
To get the Dossier moved from “political opposition research” into valid “investigative evidence” the FBI needed to find a way to get it into the investigation…. Hence, Carter Page and the FISA warrant became the unwitting target and vehicle to carry it.
That explanation also reconciles why Rosenstein signed-off on the 3rd renewal of the Carter Page FISA. Rosenstein authorized a counterintelligence operation (2nd scope) and simultaneously re-authorized the cover story, the Carter Page FISA renewal.
The ramifications here are actually bigger than the original FISA database abuse. It means the Mueller group had secret ongoing background surveillance on all of their targets; and they did not need court authority (Title-III warrants) to get evidence. Maybe, just maybe, this is part of the reason why John Durham has expanded the time-frame for his review.
Now, bear with me…. Again, just to be prudent, we don’t have the supportive material yet to see through the Boasberg ruling, so there is some conjecture here. However, if we stand back and think about the bigger picture described; and we also think about current headlines continuing to surface; a whole bunch of sketchy new things start to reconcile.
Example: Listen to the video here for a minute as Chris Ferrell explains how people were being monitored by a State Department “war room”.
One of the significant changes between the Collyer report (covering 2016) and the Boasberg report (covering 2017) was an institutional inability to track who was doing the actual database searches. Some internal process was modified to create IC anonymity.
Well, against the backdrop of Ambassador Yovanovitch in 2017 and 2018 “monitoring” American persons in/around her Ukraine interests; and considering all of these database search queries identified by Boasberg in 2017 and 2018 “incidentally” captured Americans; perhaps this explains how the Yovanovitch “monitoring” was taking place.
Burisma Leadership Meeting With Ambassador Yovanovitch in October 2018 – Link
We know what the FBI and “contractors” were doing in 2016; and given how invested the intelligence community is within the current stop-trump operations (writ large); and given the political stakes for the intelligence community, well, would there be a reason they would just stop electronic surveillance in January 2017 when President Trump was inaugurated?
I suspect this NSA database is being continually data-mined by ongoing institutional operatives and contractors who are working against the Trump administration. I suspect the surveillance of their political opposition is ongoing….
.
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending