Will smartphones and other technology make your grandchild look like ‘Mindy’ — a tech-driven dsytopian vision of species devolution with a pronounced hunch, thickened skull, extra eyelid, ‘tech claw’ and other adaptations that conjure a creature which might be called Darwin’s demon. Some say Mindy already walks among us. If you’re of a more conservative posture, you might enjoy the fellowship of Members who make this show. Sign up today. Try it for 30-days. If you don’t feel like you’ve found your people, and a place where reasoned thought, civil dialogue, and fun, make life better for you and the Republic, then just write us for a full refund. It’s a no risk proposition. Join now at https://BillWhittle.com/register/
Recorded on June 2, 2017 Senator Benjamin Sasse joins Peter Robinson to discuss his book The Vanishing American Adult and the growing crisis in America of prolonged adolescence. Senator Sasse argues that children are growing up, entering adolescence, and becoming stuck in the transitional stage to adulthood as they fail to become financially independent from their parents. He argues that because this generation of children is growing up during a time of relative peace and prosperity, it has allowed millennials to grow up without the issues of previous generations that were raised in war time. In this era of consumption and material surplus, he argues that adolescents are leading age-segregated lives and not developing a work ethic and that both their parents have an obligation to teach their children to grow up. Furthermore, he stresses the importance of intergenerational learning by allowing children to be raised around their grandparents and other adults to help them learn that the trivial trials of youth don’t matter in the long run. Senator Sasse believes that there are certain virtues that American children have to learn to become productive and happy adults. Part of that is by teaching children the distinction between production and consumption and how to find happiness and self-worth through jobs that make one feel like a necessary part of the company/society. This, he argues, will help raise peoples’ self-worth and lead them to happiness and fulfillment in their everyday. Senator Sasse finishes by stressing the importance of building children’s identities as readers to help foster the growth of ideas and active learning over the passive activities of sitting in front of screens. He notes that sedentary life is not fulfilling and that by encouraging people to participate in production over consumption will lead to more fulfilling lives. He ends on the optimistic note, that while our youth may still need guidance, overall America’s best days still lie ahead. For the full transcript go to http://www.hoover.org/research/vanish…
Democratic socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says he’ll wipe out all $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, plus offer college and trade school for free. Won’t 45 million Americans who still owe for college just love Bernie’s plan?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (Mark 10:18; see also Luke 18:19). Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21, KJV). I have been asked many times by many people if I believe in God. I don’t like this question. I generally respond by stating that I act as if God exists, but that’s not sufficiently true. Who could do that? Who could conduct themselves with the moral exactitude and care necessary of someone who would dare to make that claim? Either claim? In any case, after being asked the question yet again, when I was in Australia, I decided to attempt to answer it in some detail. This lecture, one of the 12 Rules for Life tour talks, was delivered in Sydney Feb 26, 2019, at the International Convention Centre. It was one of six I had professionally video recorded. Five of the six will be released directly on thinkspot, our new social media platform (to be announced in mid-June), as a bonus for direct subscribers (not to worry; there are still more than 50 to be released as audio on the Jordan B Peterson podcast at http://bit.ly/2HUdgnc, so it’s not as if there will be any shortage). But I thought YouTube would be appropriate for this, given the potentially broad interest in the topic. I’ve made a new playlist for it, too, entitled On (my) Belief in God. Three videos make up that playlist: this one, a 20 minute talk I did for the Prager summit in May of 2019 (https://youtu.be/vwKCK5EhibM), and an interview/discussion I had with Dennis Prager at the same event (https://youtu.be/j0GL_4cAkhI) I would recommend watching them in the playlist order, which will be this lecture first, then my Prager talk, then the interview, if you’re interested in doing so. I think they make a good group.The idea of belief in God is of extreme importance. I hope that these lectures and interviews add to everyone’s understanding of my position and why I hold it. As always, thank you very much for your continued support. The adjunct videos are also available on the Prager U site: the lecture at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avInT… the interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L47oJ… Thanks to the Prager U organization for the invitation and opportunity.
From the Aspen Ideas Festival, recorded Tuesday, June 26, 2018. Jordan Peterson, author of the best-selling 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, may be one of the most famous intellectuals in North America today. He also may be among the most misunderstood. His fans say that he’s saved their lives, and detractors say that he’s the gateway drug to the alt-right. Who is this psychologist-philosopher whom so many of us had never heard of two years ago, and what does he really believe? Featuring Jordan Peterson in conversation with Bari Weiss. Hosted in the St. Regis Hotel Ballroom, Aspen, Colorado.
“In my kingdom, you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place.” “Everything’s after you all the time & you aren’t smart enough to do anything about it.” Jordan Peterson Do you want to support his channel? Please go to his website located in the link below: https://jordanbpeterson.com/donate/ If you would like to support my channel Please go to https://www.subscribestar.com/thearch… Thank you for all your support. I truly appreciate all of you. Regardless of what your personal beliefs may be, we all have the right to speak and be heard. TheArchangel911
Details are beginning to emerge about the agreement between Democrats and Robert Muller surrounding his closely constructed upcoming testimony.
The baseline here is very important. As we have outlined throughout, and especially since the Democrats won the mid-term election, the Mueller “team” is closely coordinating with the Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Cummings group about how best to continue the efforts of the Weissmann and Mueller small group within the DOJ and FBI.
The connective tissue between House Democrats and the “Small Group” within the FBI (Weissmann and Mueller lead), is the Lawfare group. As noted in the text message between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; and as noted in the hiring of former FBI legal counsel James Baker; and as noted in the Nadler and Schiff hiring of Lawfare members for their staff; the coordination between the seditious group (DOJ/FBI) and the politicians is crystal clear.
CTH advised everyone to pay close attention to the details in the agreements between Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and the corrupt team led by Robert Mueller. Everything they are doing is based on a coordinated plan between ideologues. The effort to remove President Trump is one long continuum… it has not stopped. The Mueller testimony is just another part of this process.
Here’s some of the transparently sketchy details as outlined by staff leaks to NBC. Remember, these legislative “staff members” are part of the Lawfare group (I cannot emphasize this enough):
WASHINGTON — After months of negotiations, former special counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees on July 17, but his willingness still comes with some parameters, according to a congressional aide with knowledge of the arrangement with Mueller’s office.
There will be two open sessions with Mueller and two closed sessions with his staff.
Pay attention to how these are being structured. Two open sessions with limited questions, and only one opportunity for questions by each member of the committee.
The House Judiciary Committee will have to choose which of its members are able to ask Mueller questions during its open session. Unlike the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Judiciary Committee is quite large, almost double in size, so only 22 of its 41 members will be present for the open session, the aide said.
The details of the agreement between the committees and Mueller’s office are still being worked out, a second congressional aide said, and could still change.
Judiciary Committee members who do not get to ask questions of Mueller will still be able to attend a closed session with Mueller’s staff following the open testimony, where they will be able to ask about material that was redacted from the public eye.
Notice the closed session without Mueller. This is with Andrew Weissmann and the key members of his investigative unit. This is the heart of the real corruption. Mueller is only the figurehead. Weissmann is the real lead, and the closed door session allows the Democrats to use the Weissmann testimony.
Each member of the Intelligence Committee will be able to ask Mueller questions for five minutes in the open session before following up in a similar closed session.
Limiting the exposure of Mueller is a way for Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler to mitigate the risk. Only one round of questions.
In the closed sessions, the Intelligence Committee will have access to the unredacted version of volume I of the Mueller report, which focuses on the question of collusion and conspiracy with the Russian government, while the Judiciary Committee will have access to the unredacted version of volume II, which focuses on obstruction of justice.
Nice trick here. Notice the closed door sessions are not classified. This is the way for Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler to get the material -the innuendo and suspicion- injected into their narrative.
The unredacted content will be discussed; that means all of the investigative pathways, including the maliciously corrupt false trails will be put into the discussion. AND the politicians are free to talk about any/all content of that discussion because it is not classified.
Neither committee will have access to any information that is redacted for purposes of protecting information provided to the grand jury.
Although there will be no transcript of the closed sessions, they are not considered classified, so members may discuss what they heard.
The first congressional aide said members of both committees will not be restricted in what they can ask Mueller, but they do expect he will largely stick to the information he provided in the report. (link)
Without a transcript, there will be no factual record of the testimony behind closed doors. This allows Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and staff to make any claim about the content, regardless of the level of falsity, and there’s no factual way for rebuttal. This is by purposeful design.
Again, the use of Robert Mueller is part of the soft-coup effort. Mueller was selected for this role by the internal DOJ and FBI group who carried out the investigation. The real scheming is by the team directly under Mueller; and Mueller gets to play the role of willfully blind to the scheme. Again, by design.
Mueller didn’t select his team; the pre-existing team of corrupt officials selected him.
Andrew McCabe and James Baker, were the two guys who put the pressure on Rosenstein to select Robert Mueller. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Sally Yates, Mary McCord, Mike Kortan, James Rybicki, Andrew Weissmann, David Laufman, John Carlin, and many more are all collectively connected to this effort.
Additionally, all those aforementioned individuals are connected to Benjamin Wittes and the Lawfare Group.
Not enough people understand the role of the Lawfare group in the corruption and political weaponization of the DOJ, FBI and larger intelligence community.
What Media Matters is to corrupt left-wing media, the Lawfare group is to the corrupt DOJ and FBI.
All of the headline names around the seditious conspiracy against Donald Trump assemble within the network of the Lawfare group.
Three days after the October 21st, 2016, FISA warrant was obtained, Benjamin Wittes outlined the insurance policy approach.
FBI Director James Comey, FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, Comey memo recipient Daniel Richman, Deputy AG Sally Yates, Comey friend Benjamin Wittes, FBI lead agent Peter Strzok, FBI counsel Lisa Page, Mueller lead Andrew Weissmann and the Mueller team of lawyers, all of them -and more- are connected to the Lawfare group; and this network provides the sounding board for all of the weaponized approaches, including the various new legal theories as outlined within the Weissmann-Mueller Report.
The Lawfare continuum is very simple. The corrupt 2015 Clinton exoneration; which became the corrupt 2016 DOJ/FBI Trump investigation; which became the corrupt 2017 DOJ/FBI Mueller probe; is currently the 2019 “impeachment” plan. Weissmann and Mueller delivering their report evolved the plan from corrupt legal theory into corrupt political targeting. Every phase within the continuum holds the same goal.
The current “impeachment strategy” is planned-out within the Lawfare group.
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 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), all are within the Lawfare network.
Remember, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller didn’t come into this process as an ‘outsider’, and Mueller didn’t select his team. The corrupt Lawfare team inside government (FBI Counsel James Baker, DOJ Deputy Andrew Weissmann, FBI Deputy McCabe etc.) already knew Mueller. The team had established personal and professional connections to Mueller, and they brought him in to lead the team.
When you realize that Robert Mueller didn’t select the team; rather the preexisting team selected their figurehead, Robert Mueller; then results make sense. Robert Mueller can never be allowed to testify to congress without extremely tight controls because if questioned Mueller actually has very little understanding of what took place.
A disconcerting aspect to the Lawfare dynamic is how current U.S. Attorney General William Barr has knowledge of this. Barr knows and understands how the Lawfare network operates. Barr is from this professional neighborhood. Like Mueller, Barr also knows these people.
“As a matter of law. In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers“…
Under Eric Holder, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Tom Perez, Robert Mueller, James Comey and Andrew McCabe, the focus of the DOJ and FBI became prismatic toward politics and tribalism. All of the hired senior lawyers and officials had to be aligned with the political intents of the offices.
[CIA Director John Brennan brought the same political goals to an intelligence apparatus that held a preexisting disposition of alignment, see Mike Morell: “I ran the CIA now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton”.]
Their agencies were used against their ideological enemies in large operations like Fast-n-Furious, IRS targeting, Gibson Guitar etc. And also smaller operations: Henry Louis Gates, George Zimmerman, Darren Wilson, Ferguson, Baltimore etc. All of these activist Lawfare examples were pushed and promoted by an allied media.
Many of the ‘weaponized’ approaches use radical legal theory (ex. disparate impact), and that ties into the purposes and methods of the Lawfare Group. The intent of Lawfare is described in the name: to use Law as a tool in Warfare. The ideology that binds the group is the ideological outlook and purpose: using the legal system to target political opposition.
The legacy of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is a legacy of abject shame. Today the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to send the issue of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census back to the Commerce Department. The justices did not decide the question was unconstitutional, quite the opposite, they indicated the question was entirely up to the Dept. of Commerce, but disputed the motive behind the Commerce dept. position.
The court holds that addition of question about citizenship to 2020 census does notviolate Constitution’s enumerations clause or the Census Act, but that district court was warranted in remanding case to Department of Commerce to provide a non-pretextual explanation for adding the question.
The majority of the Court, with Roberts concurring, punted the issue back to Commerce by noting esoteric concerns about the motives behind the administrative procedure for adding the question. In essence, Secretary Wilbur Ross can add the question, but his current motive for adding the question was rebuked. Yes, this is ridiculous. Hence, the punt.
“The evidence showed,” Roberts wrote, that Ross “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while Commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the Attorney General himself to ask if DOJ would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.”
Roberts acknowledged that courts should be “deferential” when reviewing an agency’s action, but he countered – citing Judge Henry Friendly, for whom he clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit – that “we are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” And here, when “the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” judicial review calls for “something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.” “In these unusual circumstances,” Roberts concluded, the district court was therefore correct to send the case back to the Department of Commerce for it to provide a better explanation. (read more)
President Trump responded with a few tweets, noting how ridiculous the ruling was – And Trump is entirely correct:
Common sense would tell you, if there’s no constitutional issue with adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census, then the issue of the Commerce Department motive behind the question is moot. It is constitutionally permissible to ask the question, meaning it is legal, and therefore FULL STOP.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross can have any motive for adding the question, the court only disagreed with the context of the current motive saying there was a disconnect in the commerce department reasoning.
To me it looks like Chief Justice Roberts wanted to split the baby: yes, the question is constitutional and therefore legally permissible; however, the court will block the actual implementation by running out the clock based on a repudiation of irrelevant motive.
As to why Justice Roberts is a manipulative political weasel within the High Court, consider this:
In the Obamacare decision Roberts dismissed the motive issue where the government claimed the originating legislation for the healthcare mandate was a “Fee” not a tax; and Roberts manufactured the mandate argument into a “Tax” to support the mandate. In essence Roberts completely ignored the motive of the government lying about the architecture of the Obamacare payment mechanism in order for the court to support the unconstitutional mandate.
In Obamacare, the government motive was irrelevant to Roberts, so long as his court could re-write the architecture (an unconstitutional ‘fee’ became a constitutional ‘tax’) to grant constitutionality for the unconstitutional foundation of Obamacare.
However, in the Census citizenship question… government motives are now, apparently, everything that matters. In a reverse of his prior Obamacare logic, Roberts is using the motive of the government to thwart a completely constitutional administrative procedure.
See the weasel?
In the previous case Roberts ignored motive so that the court could turn an unconstitutional law into a constitutional court decision. In this case Roberts demands motive to turn a constitutional regulation into a court decision to block implementation.
Alan Dershowitz appears with two panel members of the ‘Tick-Tock-Boom club’ to discuss the potential of Robert Mueller’s testimony.
.
On the issue of the May 16th, 2017, Mueller trip to the White House raised by ‘tick-tock’ chairman Greg Jarrett, his emphasis is on the wrong syllable.
If Mueller does appear before congress the substance of Mueller’s White House visit should be ignored, and his status within the visit should be the focus. Not to beat a dead horse, but the purpose of Rosenstein taking Mueller to the White House had nothing to do with Mueller as a candidate for FBI Director.
Congress needs to skip the BS, and get right to the heart of the issue. Here is five Minutes of rapid fire questions for Mueller on this subject:
♦On May 16, 2017, were you applying to become FBI Director?
♦Why did you go to the White House?
♦When did Rod Rosenstein contact you about going to the White House?
♦When did Rod Rosenstein first contact you about becoming special counsel?
♦Did you speak to any members of the DOJ or FBI prior to going to the White House?
♦Were there conversations about a possible ‘special counsel position’ prior to May 16th, 2017?
♦Were you aware President Trump was under investigation prior to your conversation of May 16th, with President Trump?
♦Were you aware of the nature of the investigation, prior to May 16, 2017?
♦Were you aware of the possibility of being appointed ‘special counsel’?
♦Did you take any recording devices into the Oval Office meeting?
♦Did you own the cell phone you left in the Oval Office on May 16, 2017?
♦Between the afternoon Oval Office meeting and the next day announcement to the Gang-of-Eight by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, when exactly did you agree to become special counsel?
♦How did Rod Rosenstein contact you between May 16, 2017 and early morning May 17, 2017, about becoming special counsel?
♦Did you immediately agree to become special counsel when asked?
♦How much time transpired between Rosenstein asking you to become special counsel and your acceptance of the position?
See where this line of questioning goes?
The dynamic here is pretty damned obvious.
There was less than 24 hours between the time Mueller and Rosenstein were in the Oval Office (May 16th), and the time Rosenstein told the Gang-of-Eight that Mueller was appointed Special Counsel (May 17th).
That’s not a lot of time for discussion and contemplation by Mueller. Yet, Rosenstein confirmed Mueller’s appointment to the Gang-of-Eight less than 24 hours after the oval office meeting.
So it stands to reason the first contact about the position happened prior to the May 16th Oval Office meeting. If accurate, Mueller was aware Trump was under investigation, AND Mueller was aware he could be special counsel to take over the investigation prior to the Oval Office meeting.
I’ll bet you a dozen donuts the entire purpose of the Oval Office meeting with Mueller was part of the FBI investigation…. and Mueller’s cell phone wasn’t actually Mueller’s cell phone… it was an FBI phone set up so that McCabe’s investigators could listen to the conversation with the target of the investigation, President Trump.
Occam’s Razor – A former FBI Director… meeting with the president of the United States… in the oval office…. in the middle of one of the more consequential time-periods in history… immediately after the firing of the former FBI Director… with family and a network of friends curious as to the outcome…. who is also communicating with the Deputy Attorney General… doesn’t *accidentally* leave his cell phone in the Oval Office.
That background allows people to absorb the intent and motivations of the Special Counsel investigation. How many people even know Robert Mueller interviewed President Donald Trump six days after the FBI launched a criminal “obstruction of justice” investigation, and ten months after the FBI launched the counterintelligence investigation….
..The May 16, 2017, Mueller meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office.
The Mueller Report shows there never was a Trump Russia-Collusion-Conspiracy case to begin with; and with the report showing how most of Mueller’s investigative time was spent gathering evidence for an ‘obstruction case’; and with new revelations from Andrew McCabe, John Dowd and Mueller officials overlayed on the previous Strzok/Page texts; we can now clearly reconcile the May 16th, 2017, meeting between President Trump, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller. Here’s how…
FBI Director James Comey was fired on Tuesday May 9th, 2017. According to his own admissions (NBC and CBS), Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe immediately began a criminal ‘obstruction’ investigation the next day, Wednesday May 10th; and he immediately enlisted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
These McCabe statements line up with with text message conversations between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok – (same dates 5/9 and 5/10):
It now appears that important redaction is “POTUS” or “TRUMP”. [Yes, this is evidence that some unknown DOJ officials redacted information from these texts that would have pointed directly to the intents of the DOJ and FBI. [WARNING: Don’t get hung on it.]
The next day, Thursday May 11th, 2017, Andrew McCabe testifies to congress. With the Comey firing fresh in the headlines, Senator Marco Rubio asked McCabe: “has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped, or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigation?”
McCabe responded: “So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Quite simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.”
However, again referencing his own admissions, on Friday May 12th McCabe met with DAG Rod Rosenstein to discuss the issues, referencing the criminal ‘obstruction’ case McCabe had opened just two days before. According to McCabe:
… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)
Recap: Tuesday: Comey Fired; Wednesday: McCabe starts criminal ‘obstruction’ case; Thursday: McCabe testifies to congress “no effort to impede”; Friday: McCabe and Rosenstein discuss appointing a Special Counsel.
After the weekend, Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”
Now, overlaying what we know now that we did not know in 2018, to include the John Dowd interview and McCabe admissions, a very clear picture emerges.
On Tuesday May 16th, Rod Rosenstein takes Robert Mueller to the White House to talk with the target of the ‘obstruction’ criminal investigation, Donald Trump, under the ruse of bringing Mueller in for a meeting about becoming FBI Director.
Knowing McCabe launched a criminal obstruction investigation six days earlier (May 10th); and knowing Mueller was ineligible for the position of FBI Director; this “meeting” looks entirely different.
This meeting looks like an opportunity to gather evidence for the obstruction case.
Heck, perhaps this meeting was even recorded as part of the FBI investigation.
Remember the Rosenstein ‘wear a wire‘ debates? Well, did Rosenstein need to actually wear a wire, or did soon-to-be appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller just carry the recording device into an undercover deposition?… Consider:
WASHINGTON – Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former acting FBI director, reveals in his new book that Robert Mueller temporarily left his cell phone behind after a meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office and that the phone “later had to be retrieved.”
McCabe did not explain why he included the detail in his book.
McCabe says that Mueller left the phone behind after Trump had interviewed Mueller as a potential candidate to replace James Comey as FBI director. The interview reportedly took place in the Oval Office just one day before Mueller had been appointed special counsel in the so-called Russia collusion case. (more)
Oh, I think I know why McCabe included the detail in his book… leverage.
In combination with the ‘wear a wire’ comments, McCabe’s stealth book note is a shot across the bow to Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller. Only the insider ‘small group’ would understand what McCabe is threatening. It’s a get out of jail free card that McCabe played to escape the clutches of the 2018 DC criminal referral.
McCabe telling Rosenstein: Don’t try to put yourself of a pedestal and act like you were not a direct participant in the investigation of President Trump; remember the May 16th, operation? And, guess what…. it looks like it worked.
[This would explain why DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu dropped the case against McCabe?]
The next day, Wednesday May 17th, 2017, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, ¹Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.
… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”
[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)
Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.
According to President Trump’s Attorney John Dowd, the White House was stunned by the decision. [Link] Coincidentally, AG Jeff Sessions was in the oval office for unrelated business when White House counsel Don McGahn came in and informed the group. Jeff Sessions immediately offered his resignation, and Sessions’ chief-of-staff Jody Hunt went back to the Main Justice office to ask Rosenstein what the hell was going on.
Now, with hindsight and full understanding of exactly what the purposes and intents were for Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to bring Robert Mueller to the White House, revisit this video from June 2017:
.
The DOJ (Rosenstein) and FBI (McCabe) activity in coordination with the Robert Mueller team was always about the obstruction case from day one; heck, from even before Robert Mueller was appointed.
The totality of all primary effort has always been to protect the ruse of the Russia investigation by throwing out nonsense Russian indictments and keeping Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulos (the original spygate targets) under control…. while the focus was on building the obstruction case against President Trump. Remember what FBI Agent Peter Strzok said:
…”you and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”
Mueller’s investigative ‘small group’ were the people inside Main Justice (DOJ) and FBI headquarters who redacted the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages, and removed messages and communication antithetical to their goals.
As Devin Nunes outlined recently the Mueller team also kept key documents and information away from congress; stalled any effort to expose the unlawful aspects of “SpyGate’ and the fraudulent foundation behind the Carter Page FISA application; and undermined any adverse discoveries in the leak investigations (James Wolfe) writ large.
This investigative small group didn’t change when Mueller arrived, they just retooled the focus of their effort based on new leadership and new objectives. Those who created the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy case of 2016, evolved into creating the Trump obstructing justice case of 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Everything Mueller and Rosenstein were doing in late 2017 and throughout 2018 was intended to drag-out the Russia conspiracy narrative as long as possible, even though there was no actual Trump-Russia investigation taking place. The goal for the “small group” was to bury the risk by Democrats winning the 2018 mid-terms.
It was always the “obstruction” investigation that could lead to the desired result by Mueller’s team of taking down President Trump through evidence that would help Pelosi and Nadler achieve impeachment . The “obstruction case” was the entirety of the case they were trying to make from May 2017 through to March 2019.
All of the hostile DOJ and FBI action toward the people within the targeting of the investigation: Targeting Michael Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr; Paul Manafort’s early morning no-knock FBI raid; Michael Cohen’s FBI office raid; Roger Stone’s FBI and SWAT team raid; etc… All of it, was designed to provoke President Trump into taking action that would further fuel the ‘obstruction‘ case. It was all BAIT.
[¹] Now we know why House Speaker Paul Ryan moved to sideline Devin Nunes under the cloud of an ethics investigation.
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
Centinel2012 