Nancy Pelosi’s USMCA Strategy for 2020 is Contingent Upon the Canadian Election…

Earlier today Nancy Pelosi was questioned about why the House was not voting to pass the USMCA trade agreement.  Speaker Pelosi immediately fell back upon her talking point: “we are working toward yes.”   This is complete hogwash.  There are no discussions. Pelosi is doing what Pelosi does best, politicizing anything positive for the U.S. economy in a concerted effort to undermine Trump in 2020.

Here’s what is going on.

Nancy Pelosi and her far-left ideologues entered an agreement with their Canadian liberal allies and Justin Trudeau to stall the USMCA passage.

Trudeau’s government ideologues agreed not to call the USMCA up for a vote in the Canadian parliament.

Speaker Pelosi is waiting to see if Trudeau can win re-election.  If Canada re-elects Trudeau on October 21st, Pelosi will announce the labor provisions are not strong enough within the USMCA deal; discussions with the Trump administration are not resolving the issues; the U.S. workers are not protected enough, and she is tabling any vote.

Speaker Pelosi will then wait until after the 2020 election.  The purpose is political.

Ratification of the USMCA would be a boost for the U.S, and North American, economy.  More growth in the economy is politically adverse to her interests.  Part of the 2020 Democrat strategy is to stall the U.S. economy, stoke a recession narrative, and hopefully weaken President Trump’s re-election bid.  That’s the plan.

For Canada’s part of the scheme, Justin Trudeau -if successfully reelected- will announce that Canada is waiting for the U.S to work out the USMCA labor disagreements.  This is the quid-pro-quo between liberals in the democrat party and liberals in Canada.

However, if Trudeau loses the election then Pelosi loses her partner in the plan.  As a consequence Canadian ratification of the USMCA will be certain, and it will be outside the control of U.S. Democrats…

So, if Trudeau loses the election Nancy Pelosi will bring the USMCA to a vote timed with the impeachment vote.  This plan allows democrats to try and dilute the political nature of the impeachment scheme by referencing the Trump administration USMCA vote as an example of Democrats not being political.   This is how they scheme.

If it does not benefit Democrats, it simply is not done.

Yes, this is what Democrats spend 100% of their time doing… This is how they roll.  24/7/365 constant planning and political strategy sessions to best exploit and shape events to their narrative.  Here’s the talking points if Trudeau loses on Oct 21st:

…’See, we’re not politically motivated, we’re giving the same president we are impeaching a win; because this trade deal is in the best interest of America.  Just like the impeachment of this corrupt president is in the best interest of America’….

This is why it is so frustrating trying to communicate with and work with Republicans.

As a group they are the worlds worst strategists; most often, intentionally so.  The right side of the UniParty prefers to be the party in controlled-opposition because Wall Street pays them better for their votes, and their constituents are oblivious to the construct.

It’s a big club….

Hunter Quits Chinese Board: Joe Biden Touts “Squeaky Clean” Obama White House

Bill Whittle
148K subscribers
Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden says his White House will follow the “squeaky clean transparent” model of the Obama administration. This, just hours after Hunter Biden bails from board of financial firm in China. Is the former vice president engaging in prophylactic behavior because more bad news looms about Hunter’s Chinese business dealings? Does he believe his son’s innocence, but wants to turn the spotlight on Ivanka, Eric and Donald Trump Jr.? You can watch all Bill Whittle Now videos at where you can also learn more about the benefits of the Membership, including a new forum, Member-written blog, comments, private messaging and more. Most Members join because they want to spread these messages far and wide. In other words, they paid for you to watch this. You can pay it forward when you become a Member. Thank you

Fraud Continues – Nancy Pelosi Promises House Impeachment Subpoenas Will Not Have Legal Penalties – House Will Not Authorize Impeachment Inquiry…

According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote.   As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry.  Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) can only send out request letters.  The compliance is discretionary based on the ideology of the recipient.

It is likely, highly likely, Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes to proceed with a full House  impeachment authorization; so Pelosi, Schiff, Engel and Cummings have to rely on the duplicity of the media to help them hide their scheme.  So far the media is complying.

(Via Politico)  Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders will hold off on a full House vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, according to multiple lawmakers and aides.

[…] Trump, White House official and Republicans on Capitol Hill have seized on the absence of such an vote as an unacceptable break with House precedent and have vowed to resist what they describe as an illegitimate probe.

[…] Pelosi and other top Democrats could not come to an agreement among themselves during discussions on Monday over whether to move forward with the vote, which would have been a dramatic escalation of their impeachment battle with Trump.

House Democratic leaders quietly reached out to the most vulnerable members of their caucus to gauge whether they would support a formal vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry against Trump, according to multiple Democratic aides.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s (D-S.C.) office lead the outreach effort, and the issue was discussed at a closed-door leadership meeting.

[…] The idea has been met with anxiety among some of the battleground Democrats, who fear it could distract from the agenda, according to multiple aides.  (read more)

Wait, What… DOJ Has Possession of Joseph Mifsud Cell Phones (Blackberries)?…

Inside an otherwise innocuous court filing (full pdf below), General Mike Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, files a motion to compel (MTC) in an effort to gain discovery of the content from two cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud.   [Hat Tip Techno Fog]

Apparently, according to the information within the filing, the DOJ has somehow gained custody of two cell phones belonging to Mr. Mifsud:

(Source Link)

The filing notes that “western intelligence” likely tasked Mr. Mifsud against General Flynn as early as 2014 in order to set up “connections with certain Russians” for later use against him.  Essentially, an intelligence entrapment scheme.

Unfortunately the filing only identifies the cell phones along with the request for production of the content therein.  However, the fact the DOJ has two cell phones belonging to Joseph Mifsud opens up a whole bunch of questions:

#1)  How did the US Dept of Justice gain custody of Mr. Mifsud’s cell phones?

#2) Were these Blackberry cell phones issued by U.S. intelligence? (unknown agency)

#3) Why has the U.S. DOJ taken custody of those cell phones?

#4) If #2 is yes, wouldn’t that automatically destroy the “Mifsud as a Russian intelligence asset” narrative?

#5) [Less important] How the heck did Sidney Powell find out about them?

Something is certainly happening here. The cell phone models are from 2011 and 2014.

With U.S. Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr traveling to Italy to listen to the taped deposition of Joseph Mifsud last month….. and now the discovery that the DOJ has his cell phones from a period of keen interest in the Russia collusion-conspiracy framework….  It would appear Mr. Mifsud might just be the Maltese Fulcrum.

Meadows, Zeldin and Jordan: “‘whistleblower’ has right to protection, no right to anonymity”…

HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff has changed the proceedings from “interviews” to “depositions” in an effort to block republicans from discussing witness testimony.  While the minority is blocked from discussing the democrats are leaking to the New York Times and DC media. This is part of the political strategy to frame the impeachment narrative.

During an interview on Capitol Hill today Representatives Mark Meadows, Lee Zeldin and Jim Jordan outline how the Democrats now want to drop any discussion or use of the whistleblower.  Jordan righteously outlines to an antagonistic media how the ‘whistleblower’ has a right to protection, but no right to anonymity.


Meanwhile today Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent is participating in a closed-door deposition with House Intel, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight & Reform Committees.

Jim Jordan Reacts to Hunter Biden Interview and Ongoing Schiff Impeachment Maneuvers…

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan reacts to Hunter Biden’s interview, and then outlines how Speaker Pelosi and Adam Schiff have structured the ‘impeachment inquiry’ to hide testimony that supports the administration and leak testimony to frame a narrative.

Beyond Obtuse – ABC’s Heavily Edited and Shaped Interview With Hunter Biden…

Amid the scandal of Joe Biden’s son receiving payments from business deals in Ukraine and China related to his family influence, ABC steps in to run defense with an exceptionally obtuse interview with Hunter Biden.

Either the interviewer doesn’t know anything about how Corporate Boards pay members and the structure of business ventures, partnerships, capital fee repayment, board fees etc; or the interviewer intentionally didn’t challenge some of these ridiculous obfuscations by Hunter Biden; perhaps both.

During the Chinese deal Hunter Biden was in a partnership. Hunter Biden paid $420,000 for a ten percent equity position (a “capital call”) in the new venture AFTER the Chinese invested $1.5 billion [a 10% equity purchase would be worth $150 million]. The partnership could then pay the board members “board fees” or “capital investment fees” as the investment matures. The big payout doesn’t come until after the investment matures and Biden -as a partner- then sells his equity position back. That payoff is coming.

So when Hunter Biden says he “hasn’t made a dime” off the China deal, that’s because the investment fund hasn’t matured yet. In essence, he’s fibbing; and counting on people not to know how this stuff works.


Here’s part two:


Figures – Report: IG Report Delayed Release – Ongoing “Classification Review”…

Maria Bartiromo had initially reported the IG report on the Carter Page FISA situation was going to be released around the end of this week.  Ms. Bartiromo is now reporting a delay:

It’s the “classifications being made” part that raises concern.  President Trump granted Attorney General Bill Barr with declassification authority on May 23rd, 2019, so that any classification issues could be minimized and maximum transparency afforded.

WHITE HOUSE: (MAY 23rd) “Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General’s investigation into surveillance activities during the 2016 Presidential election.

The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information. Today’s action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions.” (read more)

Memorandum for Agency Guidance below:


SUBJECT: Agency Cooperation with Attorney General’s Review of Intelligence Activities Relating to the 2016 Presidential Campaigns

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

♦Section 1. Agency Cooperation.

The Attorney General is currently conducting a review of intelligence activities relating to the campaigns in the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The heads of elements of the intelligence community, as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3003(4), and the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community shall promptly provide such assistance and information as the Attorney General may request in connection with that review.

♦Sec. 2. Declassification and Downgrading.

With respect to any matter classified under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 (Classified National Security Information), the Attorney General may, by applying the standard set forth in either section 3.1(a) or section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence that relates to the Attorney General’s review referred to in section 1 of this memorandum. Before exercising this authority, the Attorney General should, to the extent he deems it practicable, consult with the head of the originating intelligence community element or department. This authority is not delegable and applies notwithstanding any other authorization or limitation set forth in Executive Order 13526.

♦Sec. 3. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) The authority in this memorandum shall terminate upon a vacancy in the office of Attorney General, unless expressly extended by the President.

(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(e) The Attorney General is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.


Rep Lee Zeldin Discusses Fiona Hill Testimony and Schiff’s Conspicuous Attempt to Drop the Whistleblower…

There is something very damaging about the CIA operative -turned gossiper- that Adam Schiff used to launch his Ukraine dossier (aka “whistleblower? report).  If the gossiper wasn’t sketchy, the Democrats would be heralding his heroism; instead they are trying to sweep away any mention of their CIA ally, and drop the ‘whistleblower’ angle completely.

In this interview Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin discusses the shady tactics of the impeachment committees against the appearance today by President Trump’s former Russia aide Fiona Hill.  Rep. Zeldin also notes the conspicuous bull-schiff.


There was a mid-day presser (below) with Zeldin and Jim Jordan that also provides good information.


Judicial Watch Reveals Surveillance Targets Requested by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch and State Department – But Bigger Question is Missing…

There are times during research when searching for details leaves the obviously immediate questions unanswered.  This is one of those examples.  Judicial Watch is hot on the trail of a State Department effort to monitor domestic political opposition.

Specifically former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, initiated a request for State Dept. officials to conduct surveillance on: Jack Posobiec, Donald Trump Jr., Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia), Dan Bongino, Ryan Saavedra, Rudy Giuliani, Sebastian Gorka, John Solomon, Lou Dobbs, Pamella Geller and Sara Carter.

More details:

(Via JW) Judicial Watch has obtained information indicating Yovanovitch may have violated laws and government regulations by ordering subordinates to target certain U.S. persons using State Department resources.

Yovanovitch reportedly ordered monitoring keyed to the following search terms: Biden, Giuliani, Soros and Yovanovitch. Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department and will continue gathering facts from government sources.

Prior to being recalled as ambassador to Ukraine in the spring Yovanovitch reportedly created a list of individuals who were to be monitored via social media and other means. Ukraine embassy staff made the request to the Washington D.C. headquarters office of the department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.

After several days, Yovanovitch’s staff was informed that the request was illegal and the monitoring either ceased or was concealed via the State Department Global Engagement Center, which has looser restrictions on collecting information.

“This is not an obscure rule, everyone in public diplomacy or public affairs knows they can’t make lists and monitor U.S. citizens unless there is a major national security reason,” according to a senior State Department official. If the illicit operation occurred, it seems to indicate a clear political bias against the president and his supporters.

Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who has also led American embassies in Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016. She was recalled by the State Department in May and remains a State Department employee in Washington D.C. (read more)

Judicial Watch is on an honorable and righteous mission; and I do not mean to diminish the importance of their work. However, I find myself slightly annoyed at this issue because a simple question is not being asked.

Obviously Maria Yovanovitch was aware of some pre-existing process that facilitated the surveillance of U.S. persons adverse to the interests of the U.S. State Department; and obviously some process was initiated in order for it to be “ceased or concealed”, right?

Well, the simple question is “HOW”?

How exactly does the U.S. State Department monitor people or persons they define as adverse to their interests?

Unfortunately I think we might have the answer to that question: SEE HERE

And also unfortunately, within that explanation there is another obvious question that doesn’t require thousands of pages of evidence, testimony and FISC debate.

Despite all of the extensively legally written scripts describing the process no-one, including the judges outlining the problem, pauses to ask the simple question “WHY“?

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. (more)

  • How does the state department monitor their adversaries?
  • Why is the NSA FISA(702) database used to monitor non-foreign persons?

Simple questions that should not require years of investigations to answer.