In the final round of voting at the Utah Republican party convention, state Representative Mike Kennedy won 50.88% of the vote, and Mitt Romney placed second with 49.12%.

Giddy up.  This forces Mitt Romney into a republican primary runoff in June for the Utah senate seat being vacated by current Senator Orrin Hatch. [Kennedy Website HERE]

(Via The Hill) […] Saturday’s defeat was a surprising turn for Romney, whose national profile far exceeds Kennedy’s and who could count on a strong donor network and the endorsement of prominent Republicans, including Hatch and President Trump.

When he made his bid official, Romney was considered a virtual lock for the GOP nomination and was not expected to face a serious primary challenger.  […] Romney made headlines earlier on Saturday when he said he was not ready to endorse Trump for reelection in 2020, telling CNN he would “make that decision down the road.” (read more)

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes discusses the ongoing challenges with getting information from DOJ and FBI.

Chairman Nunes discusses a January 2017 briefing with the HPSCI and FBI Director Comey, and how his committee was originally misled by Comey about the origin of the Clinton-Steele Dossier. If there wasn’t a nefarious intent, a willful conspiracy to mislead, then why wasn’t James Comey forthright and fulsome in his answers?

You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States. ~SD

Law Professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on Fox News weekend to discuss the DNC lawsuit, Robert Mueller, and the ongoing FBI issues with James Comey.

Two months ago Andrew McCarthy wrote an article in National Review discussing the email President Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent to herself on inauguration day 2017.  With the latest discoveries from James Comey’s admissions amid the headlines the February article by McCarthy is very prescient. {see here}

Susan Rice emailed herself to create a record surrounding a January 5th, 2017, meeting between top White House officials and senior intelligence members.  It was the next day, January 6th, when FBI Director James Comey briefed President-Elect Trump on part of the Clinton-Steele dossier.  With hindsight, the White House meeting (1/5/17) and the Trump Tower briefing (1/6/17) take on additional meaning.

The departing administration’s highly-politicized intelligence apparatus, Comey (FBI), Brennan (CIA) and Clapper (DNI), conspired -strategically- to weaponize false intelligence in order to create a media narrative that would damage, and hopefully eliminate, the incoming president and his administration.  With full measure of context, contrast against the identifiable behavior that followed; and accepting the FBI team was working diligently on an “insurance policy” agenda; there is no other way to look at these events.

In his article, McCarthy rightly sets the stage:

[…] Let’s think about what was going on at that moment. It had been just a few days since Obama imposed sanctions on Russia. In that connection, the Kremlin’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, had contacted Trump’s designated national-security adviser, Michael Flynn. Obama-administration leadership despised Flynn, who (a) had been fired by Obama from his post as Defense Intelligence Agency chief; (b) had become a key Trump supporter and an intense critic of Obama foreign and national-security policy; and (c) was regarded by Yates and Comey as a possible criminal suspect — on the wayward theories that Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak could smack of a corrupt quid pro quo deal to drop the sanctions and might violate the never invoked, constitutionally dubious Logan Act.

What else was happening? The Justice Department and FBI had gone to the FISA court on October 21, 2016, for a warrant to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. That warrant relied largely on the Steele dossier, which alleged a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin involving (a) a cyberespionage operation against the 2016 election, (b) corrupt negotiations regarding the sanctions, and (c) the Kremlin’s possession of “kompromat” that would enable the Putin regime to blackmail President-elect Trump.

Significantly, by the time of this January 6 meeting with Trump, the 90-day surveillance period under the FISA warrant would have had just a bit over two weeks left to run — it was set to expire just as Trump was to take office. (Reporting suggests that there may also have been a FISA warrant on Paul Manafort around this time.) The Obama administration was therefore confronting a deadline if the FISA warrant was to be renewed while Obama was still in power. The officials in the meeting would need to figure out how the investigation could continue despite the fact that its central focus, Trump, was about to be sworn in as president.  (read more)

McCarthy accurately predicted two-months-ago that James Comey did not brief President Trump on the full content of the Clinton-Steele Dossier. This suspicion has been confirmed as fact by the recent admissions of James Comey himself.

January 5th, 2017, an Oval Office meeting with President Obama, VP Joe Biden, James Comey (FBI), Michael Rogers (NSA), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Sally Yates (DOJ) and Susan Rice.   At the conclusion of the briefing, President Obama asks Sally Yates and James Comey to remain.  Together with Susan Rice, this is where the “by the book” CYA comment comes into play. As recounted by Rice: “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

January 6th, 2017, the Trump Tower meeting with President-elect Trump, VPE Mike Pence, Mike Flynn, etc.  Where James Comey asks for a private discussion with the President-elect:

(Link To Comey Memos)

June 8th, 2017 – Vice-Chairman Senator Mark Warner (D) questions Comey during Senate Intelligence Committee hearing [Transcript Source]:

♦ Mark Warner […] I know members have said and press have said that if you were — a great deal has been made whether the president — whether you were asked whether the president was the subject of any investigation. My understanding is prior to your meeting on January 6th you discussed with your leadership team whether or not you should be prepared to assure then President-Elect trump that the FBI was not investigating him personally. Now my understanding is your leadership team agreed with that. But was that a unanimous decision? was there any debate about that?

♦ James Comey: Wasn’t unanimous.One of the members of the leadership team had a view that although it was technically true we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then President-Elect trump. His concern was because we’re looking at the potential, again, that’s the subject of the investigation, coordination between the campaign and Russia because it was president trump, President-Elect trump’s campaign, this person’s view was inevitably his behavior, his conduct will fall within the scope of that work and so he was reluctant to make the statement that I made. I disagreed. I thought it was fair to say what was literally true. There is not a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Trump. And I decided in the moment to say it given the nature of our conversation.

One member of the FBI leadership team, a “he”, with understanding of the full scope of the counterintelligence operation, disagreed with Director Comey making an obtuse, disingenuous and highly misleading statement to President Trump that he was not under an FBI counterintelligence investigation.

Obviously there was a counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign, and by extension presidential candidate Donald Trump.   However, as noted in the Susan Rice email describing the content of the January 5th, 2017, White House meeting – the intent of the outgoing administration was to keep president-elect Trump under investigation, yet not allow him to know he was under investigation.  Hence the briefing on only the most “salacious and unverified content of the dossier”.

The goal of the “insurance policy” was to frame the target.  Therefore the target must be played by the officials doing the framing.

However, one official within the leadership of the FBI thought it was wrong to be disingenuous with discussions and briefing for an incoming President.  That one senior FBI official was a “he”.

Now who do you think that “he” was?

This same “he”:

.

The same “he” who was scheduled to testify to the House Intelligence Committee; but for some mysterious reason the request to interview “him” and four others (Page, Strzok, Ohr and Baker) were all dropped.

The same “he” who, along with the four others, remains employed.

The same “he” who, unlike the four others, has never been removed, suspended, demoted or isolated from his job; and the same “he” who remains in his position through today.

Representatives from Canadian, Mexican and the U.S. are in the deepest weeds within NAFTA negotiations and some of the proposals are flat out nuts.

Within the auto-sector the “Rules of Origin” continue to be one of the biggest sticking points.  The U.S. position is that 80% or more of a vehicle made in the U.S., Mexico or Canada should be made from parts from the U.S., Mexico or Canada, ie. North America.  Canada and Mexico are trying to argue for lower North American content because they want more Asian/Chinese parts in American automobiles. [Reuters Link]

On its face their position is ridiculous.  Canada and Mexico are not arguing for more Canadian and Mexican content; they are arguing for more Chinese content.  The U.S. is arguing for more North American content.  Canada and Mexico want to support China’s economy; the U.S. wants to support Canada, Mexico and the U.S. economy.   Let that sink in for a moment.

In an effort to enhance their ridiculous position, Canada and Mexico have come up with a proposal that is, well, bananas. Can/Mex want the United States to tax vehicles made in Canada and Mexico.  Stop. Re-read that.  Yes, that is correct.  Canada and Mexico want Chinese parts so badly, they are arguing for the U.S. to tax American (NAFTA) automobiles.

Nuts.

The reasoning is simple -albeit twisted as hell- and goes back to the fatal flaw in NAFTA as it exists.  Canada and Mexico have created economic models within their multinational corporate manufacturing processes where they import parts from China, Asia and Europe – assemble them – then ship those goods duty free into the U.S. market.

Canada and Mexico are used by European, Asian and Chinese companies as a backdoor into the U.S. where they can avoid tariffs.  This is part of their business model.

In an effort to attempt to find agreement with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Canada (Freeland) and Mexico (Guajardo) have proposed that their auto industry be treated as an import and apply the 2.5% trade tariff customary for imported automobiles.

Well, what the hell good is NAFTA, a trilateral trade agreement, if we are going to treat Canada and Mexico as countries needing import duties?   This is nonsense.

Canadian News –  NAFTA negotiating teams will keep bargaining through the weekend in an effort to get a deal by early May.

The political ministers leading the process are currently leaving Washington, but will be back next week.  Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland calls it a perpetual negotiating round.  She said the talks continue to focus primarily on automobiles, which she describes as the heart of the new agreement.

Sources say negotiators are now extremely close to an agreement on that issue and are discussing fine details. (link with video)

Meanwhile, U.S.T.R. Lighthizer is considering pulling out of NAFTA if an agreement on principle can be reached.  That strategy forces to congress to sign-on to the renegotiated trade deal or face allowing NAFTA to end.

According to Fox News Catherine Herridge reporting, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is investigating the unauthorized distribution of classified memos by former FBI Director James Comey.   The Wall Street Journal is also reporting that two of the four memos Director Comey gave to his friend Daniel Richman contained classified information.

According to the WSJ report: “At least two of the memos that former FBI Director James Comey gave to a friend outside of the government contained information that officials now consider classified, according to people familiar with the matter, prompting a review by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog.”

It is further reported that James Comey redacted elements of one memo himself in an effort to protect secrets before he handed the documents over to his friend Daniel Richman.  Comey made the self-determination that no another memo contained classified information.  However, after he left the FBI officials upgraded the second memo content to “confidential” after a review.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is now conducting an investigation into the releases of the memo and the overall circumstances surrounding the releases. Previously Comey stated he considered the memos personal records and not government documents. He told congress he wrote them and authorized their release to the media “as a private citizen.”

In a pathetic attempt to keep pushing the vast Russian conspiracy narrative; and trying to get out in front of growing evidence that former Obama administration, government officials, DNC and weaponized government conspired to assist Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential bid; the DNC has filed a lawsuit against the Trump campaign accusing their opposition of what they are transparently guilty of.

New York – The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks that alleges a massive conspiracy to swing the 2016 election in favor of the president.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Kremlin to damage Hillary Clinton and help Trump by hacking the DNC’s computers and publishing stolen emails on WikiLeaks.

“No one is above the law,” reads the beginning of the DNC’s complaint, which was obtained by The Post.

“In the run-up to the 2016 election, Russia mounted a brazen attack on American Democracy. The opening salvo was a cyber attack on the DNC, carried out on American soil,” said the lawsuit, filed by lawyer Michael Eisenkraft. (link)

It’s actually a predictable strategy given the nature of the current pendulum swing and the increased likelihood multiple political operatives are about to find themselves in the investigative spotlight.  By driving the political divisive narrative harder, the Democrats will attempt to say any criminal investigative findings are political.

The DNC lawsuit will most likely be dismissed as frivolous.  However, in the event it is allowed the proceed the Trump campaign can stand to gain a great deal of information during the discovery phase.  The Trump team respond:

[…]  If this lawsuit proceeds, the Trump Campaign will be prepared to leverage the discovery process and explore the DNC’s now-secret records about the actual corruption they perpetrated to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Everything will be on the table, including:

♦How the DNC contributed to the fake dossier, using Fusion GPS along with the Clinton Campaign as the basis for the launch of a phony investigation.
♦Why the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC servers in the course of their investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal.
♦How the DNC conspired to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination over Bernie Sanders.
♦How officials at the highest levels of the DNC colluded with the news media to influence the outcome of the DNC nomination.
♦Management decisions by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Tom Perez, and John Podesta; their e-mails, personnel decisions, budgets, opposition research, and more. (link)