In an order released moments ago, Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan has denied all of the Brady requests by the Flynn defense lawyer and summarily rejected the position of defense counsel. Flynn sentencing is scheduled for January 28th, 2020.
Judge Sullivan relies heavily on the Mueller report and finds: the case was adequately predicated and authorized by Rod Rosenstein; the original guilty plea to Judge Contreras was appropriately informed; the government followed all appropriate notifications for Brady material; the evidence of Flynn’s guilt is accurately demonstrable to the guilty plea Mr. Flynn accepted; and there was no prosecutorial misconduct.
It is somewhat interesting how the list of material for declassification is a portion of the brady material. By withholding the classification material (particularly the Susan Rice memo to file) Attorney General William Barr has built the gallows upon which Flynn will hang….
National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow appears on Fox News for a discussion of the status of the U.S. economy, the USMCA and the U.S-China trade agreement.
The Wall Street GOPe, positioned primarily in the senate, are preparing to punish the administration for their restructuring of global trade against the backdrop of the senate influence over impeachment.
Visit our friends at The Patriot Post: America’s News Digest http://bit.ly/37SbmhP —– There’s bipartisan agreement that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is inefficient, using antiquated and vulnerable computer systems. But after 18 months of trying to eliminate an agency that employs 5,500 bureaucrats, President Trump now says he won’t. Despite telling campaign crowds he would cut the size of government so fast your head will spin, he has accomplished no substantial reductions in the size or scope of the federal bureaucracy. Should Republicans abandon their talk of ending the era of big government and just accept that once a federal agency starts, like OPM did in the 1970s, it will live on eternally? Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott comes to you 20-time each month thanks to our Members. Join them today at https://BillWhittle.com/register/ – Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/billwhittle – Listen to our shows on the go with your podcast app: http://bit.ly/BWN-Podcasts – Watch us now on Amazon’s Fire TV by downloading the Bill Whittle Network app. http://bit.ly/BWN-FireTV – Ask your Amazon smart device, “Alexa, play Bill Whittle Network on TuneIn radio.” – We’re on Bitchute too: http://bit.ly/BWN-Bitchute
The House vote on Impeaching Trump may be the stake through the heart of the Democratic Party. Most of the people newly elected were extremely left and they remain vulnerable when they barely made it to Congress, like AOC. This will be a test for the moderates v the extremists and if the moderates vote on party lines rather than the facts, many will be putting their own seats in jeopardy come 2020. Those in favor of impeachment come in at 4.5% and 45.8% of Americans favor removing him from office. It is a very heated debate in the Democratic party.
When the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, it did not go well for them Newt Gingrich who championed the impeachment lost his seat. What is clear is that Trump would not be removed from office. He may even test the claims before the Supreme Court. Here we have Obama and Biden using the FBI to investigate Trump during the election. This can be a major blow to the Democratic Party which goes a long way to splitting the party.
If the FBI made that call to ask if Ukraine would investigate Biden and his withholding money unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired his son, there would be NO ISSUE! Trump did not interfere with an investigation as did Biden, he simply asked to investigate and report if there were any illegal acts. That was nothing compared to Hillary funding the dossier that began the entire Russian investigation.
It was the Clintons foe gave the wink and the nod to the bankers who set out to take over Russia by blackmailing Yeltsin with the $7 billion they got him to take from the IMF loans and divert to Geneva through Bank of New York. Indeed, CNN reported the money was taken from the IMF and only sanitized their reporting to protect the Clintons later by dropping any reference to the IMF. Yeltsin turned to Putin August 9th, 1999 when he realized he was set up by the New York Bankers and thus Putin knew full well Hillary had given the wink and the nod.
Congress is well aware of the U.S. banker’s attempt to interfere in the Russian elections and passed a resolution prohibiting any American to be questioned by Russians for they knew full well that they had dirty hands. When someone is guilty, they typically blame someone else. That seems to be why the Democrats have preferred to restart the cold war because Hillary was defeated.
In the complaint used by the Democrats for impeachment, the claimed whistleblower is protected and that does not comport with Due Process of Law. In a Trial, that person will be called to testify. If the Democrats try to withhold that, I would suspect it will go to the Supreme Court. You have an absolute right to face your accuser in a democracy. This protected whistleblower said they did not understand Trump’s request that Ukraine locates and turn over a server used by the DNC during the 2016 presidential election. He defends the Democrats and claims it was subsequently examined by CrowdStrike, a U.S. cybersecurity firm. Then-FBI Director James Comey stated that the DNC had denied the FBI’s requests to examine the breached servers. Comey then said at the time that the FBI and DNC agreed to let the private firm CrowdStrike access the servers and share the findings with investigators. That is completely insane. So the FBI would allow a private company to investigate someone and then indict that person without ever verifying the investigation itself?
Honestly, there are many questions that would rise to the Supreme Court for this will be the trial of the century. They cannot hide the server that is now part of the whistleblower’s complaint nor can they hide the whistleblower and prevent them from testifying in a trial in the Senate. This is like some medieval trial that completely denies the Due Process of Law.
USTR Robert Lighthizer made a rare appearance in the media to discuss the “big picture”, and some specifics, around the U.S-China phase-one agreement.
Ambassador Lighthizer notes the principle challenge is generating an enforceable set of standards -within a written agreement- between a totally controlled communist economic system (China) and a free-market system (USA). No other nation has ever tried, and there is no preexisting trade agreement to facilitate a mapping. What Lighthizer is constructing will be what all nations will start to use going forward. This is historic stuff.
Arguably, next to President Trump, USTR Lighthizer is one of the most consequential members of the administration. What he is constructing, with the guidance of President Trump, is going to influence generations of Americans.
.
[Transcript] MARGARET BRENNAN: This week, the U.S. and China agreed on the first phase of a trade deal that would roll back some American tariffs. It’s expected to be signed in early January. We’re joined now by the U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, the top negotiator in those talks with Chinese officials. Good to have you here.
U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT LIGHTHIZER: Thank you for having me, MARGARET.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s huge to have the two largest economies in the world cool off some of these tensions that have been rattling the global economy. But I want to get to some of the details here. China says still needs to be proofread, still needs to be translated. Is you being here today a sign this is done, this deal’s not falling apart?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: So first of all, this is done. This is something that happens in every agreement. There’s a translation period. There are some scrubs. This is totally done. Absolutely. But can I make one point? Because I think it’s really important. Friday was probably the most momentous day in trade history ever. That day we submitted the USMCA, the Mexico-Canada Agreement with bipartisan support and support of business, labor, agriculture. We actually introduced that into the House and the Senate on this, which is about 1.4 trillion dollars worth of the economy- I mean of- of trade. And then in addition to this, which is about 600 billion, so that’s literally about half of total trade were announced on the same day. It was extremely momentous and indicative of where we’re going, what this president has accomplished.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that is significant and I do want to get to the USMCA. But because the China deal just happened–
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –and we know so little about it, I’d like to get some more detail from you. You said this is set.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You expect the signing in early January still.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What gives President Trump the confidence to say China’s going to go out and buy $50 billion worth of agricultural goods because Beijing hasn’t said that number?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: First of all- let me say first of all, I would say this. When we look at this agreement, we have to look at where we are. We have an American system, and we have a Chinese system. And we’re trying to figure out a way to have these two become integrated. That’s what’s in our interest. A phase one deal does the following: one, it keeps in place three hundred and eighty billion dollars worth of tariffs to defend, protect U.S. technology. So that’s one part of it. Another part of it is very important structural changes. This is not about just agricultural and other purchases, although I’ll get to that in a second. It’s very important. It has IP. It has- it has–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Intellectual property–
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: –technology. It has- it has currency. It has financial services. There’s a lot of very- the next thing is, it’s- it’s enforceable. There’s an enforcement provision that lasts 90 days- it takes 90 days and you get real, real enforcement. The United States can then take an action if China doesn’t keep its commitments–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Put the tariffs back on?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Well, you would take a proportionate reaction like we do in every other trade agreement. So that’s what we expect. And finally, we’ll- we’ll find out whether this works or not. We have an enforcement mechanism. But ultimately, whether this whole agreement works is going to be determined by who’s making the decisions in China, not in the United States. If the hardliners are making the decisions, we’re going to get one outcome. If- if the reformers are making the decisions, which is what we hope, then we’re going to get another outcome. This is a- the way to think about this deal, is this is a first step in trying to integrate two very different systems to the benefit of both of us.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But that $50 billion number, is that in writing?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Absolutely. So- so here’s what’s in writing. We- we have a list that will go manufacturing, agriculture, services, energy and the like. There’ll be a total for each one of those. Overall, it’s a minimum of 200 billion dollars. Keep in mind, by the second year, we will just about double exports of goods to China, if this- if this agreement is in place. Double exports. We had about 128 billion dollars in 2017. We’re going to go up at least by a hundred, probably a little over one hundred. And in terms of the agriculture numbers, what we have are specific breakdowns by products and we have a commitment for 40 to 50 billion dollars in sales. You could think of it as 80 to 100 billion dollars in new sales for agriculture over the course of the next two years. Just massive numbers.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that is important in no small part because also this is a key political constituency for President Trump going into the election, to take some pain off of American farmers who’ve been feeling it pretty strongly. I mean, the USDA projects that the soybean market won’t recover, I think til 2026 because of the damage that has been done to it.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Listen–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that- how much of that, that political calculus, factored into the agreement to do this in phases? Because you didn’t want to do it in phases.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Well, it was MARGARET–
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Chinese did.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: It was always going to be in phases. The question was, how big was the first phase? Anyone who thinks you’re going to take their system and our system that have- that have worked in a very unbalanced way for the United States and in- in one stroke of the pen change all of that is foolish. The president is not foolish. He’s very smart. The question was, how big- how big was the first phase going to be? This is going to take years. We’re not going to resolve these differences very quickly. On the agriculture point, that’s a good point. Let me say this. If you look at American agriculture in between USMCA, which is Canada and Mexico, China, Japan, Korea, we have rewritten the rules in favor of American agriculture on more than half, 56 percent, of all of our exports from agriculture. This, over the course of the last year, what this president has accomplished in this area, is remarkable. And you’re already- any one of these deals would have been monstrous. And the fact that we have all of them together–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: –is- is great for agriculture.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I just want to button up on China, though, because the promise here was to do the things that American businesses have been complaining about for years–
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Absolutely.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Not just the intellectual property theft, but subsidizing corporations in China in an unfair way for Americans. Cybertheft. None of that’s here.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Well–
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s phase two. When do you start negotiating that?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: So let me say first of all–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Is there a date?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Let’s talk about what’s here rather than what’s not here.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But that’s huge.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Absolute rules on–
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s what President Trump said this whole trade war was starting on.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Look at tech- tech transfer is huge. That’s what’s in the 301 report. Look, we had a plan that- the president came up with a plan. We’ve been following it for two and a half years. We are right where we hope to be. Tech transfer, real commitments, IP, real specific commitments. I mean, this agreement is 86 pages long of detail. Agricultural barriers removed in many cases, financial services opening, currency. This is a real structural change. Is it going to solve all the problems? No. Did we expect it to? No. Absolutely not.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do- the president said those talks in to start immediately, though. Do you have a date?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: We don’t have a date, no. What we have to do is get this- we have to get the- the final translations worked out, the formalities. We’re going to sign this agreement. But I’ll tell you this. The second Phase 2 is going to be determined also by how we implement phase one. Phase one is going to be implemented right to the- right down to every detail.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to–
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: It really is a remarkable agreement, but it’s not going to solve all the problems.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we need to take a short break. We’ll be back with US Trade Representative Lighthizer in a moment.
*COMMERCIAL*
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to Face the Nation and our conversation with US Trade representative Robert Lighthizer. Let’s talk about the other agreement. The House is set, Democratic controlled House, is set to vote on the USMCA, the free trade deal with Mexico and Canada that’s been rewritten. This is a win for the president to get this through, but Nanc- Speaker Pelosi and her caucus did have some last minute maneuvers here. Speaker Pelosi is quoted as saying we ate their lunch when it comes to the Trump administration.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: So–
MARGARET BRENNAN: How do you respond to that?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: We had a great–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You made some concessions to labor here. That was not insignificant and it did irk some Republicans.
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: So- so- so let me- let me make a point about that. We had an election and the Democrats won the House, number one. Number two, it was always my plan and I was criticized for this, as you know, it was always my plan that this should be a Trump trade policy. And a Trump trade policy is going to get a lot of Democratic support. Remember, most of these working people voted for the president of the United States. These are- these are not his enemies. So what did we concede on? We conceded on biologics. Yes. That was a move away from what I wanted, for sure. But labor enforcement? There’s nothing about being against labor enforcement that’s Republican. The president wants Mexico to enforce its labor laws. He doesn’t want American manufacturing workers to have to compete with people who are- who are operating in- in- in very difficult conditions. So there’s–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you don’t think there’s a political cost because Republican senators were annoyed to be cut out of this last phase?
AMB. LIGHTHIZER: Look it there are- there are always process issues. This bill is better now with the exception of biologics, which is a big exception. With the exception of biologics, it’s more enforceable and it’s better for American workers and American manufacturers and agriculture workers than it was before. For sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Lighthizer, Thank you very much for joining us.
National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the ratification of the USMCA and the U.S-China “phase one” trade deal.
.
USTR Lighthizer appeared on CBS to discuss the China agreement, he goes into more detail. That conversation is coming next.
Representative John Ratcliffe is one of only three republican members of congress [the only one remaining (Gowdy, Goodlate gone)] who has seen all of the classified material evidence behind the FISA application and the intelligence abuses in 2016.
In this interview Ratcliffe outlines the scale and scope of the abuses as well as what they mean in the context of corrupt and illegal DOJ and FBI activity. WATCH:
.
The takeaway from this interview with Bartiromo is exactly why senators who participated with the intelligence operation to remove and eliminate President Trump blocked Ratcliffe’s nomination to the position of Director of National Intelligence.
The SSCI controls who is allowed to be CIA Director, NSA Director and Director of National Intelligence. The nominees must pass through this committee. Senator Burr and Senator Warner are the Chairman and Vice-Chair respectively. Both blocked Ratcliffe.
The SSCI is compromised. One example of their compromise was how they worked with SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to leak the Carter Page FISA application to the media. Other examples include how Vice-Chairman Warner was communicating covertly with Christopher Steele and back-channeling information to Robert Mueller. There are dozens more specific examples if you use the “search function” on this website.
Because of their direct role in confirming the officials who would have access to the evidence of their compromise, the SSCI can block anyone who would be a risk to them.
President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe for the position of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Senator Burr informed the White House that nominee does not align with their interests. President Trump withdrew the nomination.
The intelligence apparatus is a key part of the rogue administrative state that operates in direct alignment with a rogue state department and politicians who use their influence to gain material wealth from sales of policy. It is a synergy of DC interests.
In the larger context this reality also explains why Lt. General Michael Flynn had to be eliminated with extreme prejudice from National Security Advisor to President Trump. In 2017 Michael Flynn represented the same type of threat to the SSCI that John Ratcliffe represents in 2019….
The office of the presidency cannot overcome that institutional power dynamic; the only thing President Trump can do it attempt to work around them.
♦ Ipso Facto: If you accept the intellectual honesty behind the process issues above; and if you accept how the SSCI will only permit nominees that are not a risk to their interests; then it becomes of greater importance to consider who they *did* permit:
√ CIA Director Gina Haspel was not a threat to the corrupt state.
√ CIA Director Mike Pompeo was not a threat to the corrupt state.
√ ODNI Dan Coats was not a threat to the corrupt state.
√ NSA Director Paul M Nakasone is not a threat to the corrupt state.
Using a process of elimination, my evolving contention is now that State Dept. Secretary Mike Pompeo is handling President Trump by giving him advice that keeps the United States President oblivious to the danger around him.
Secretary Pompeo will allow President Trump to work on his economic agenda and will not attempt to interfere because that would expose Pompeo to getting fired.
There is also a massive overlay of corrupt political enterprise, that’s where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is controlling the valves.
Similarly it now appears AG Bill Barr was recommended by those within the intelligence apparatus (who control the administrative state) to have some control over the outcomes.
With no demonstrable action to highlight any other intention, Bill Barr is now positioned as the corruption monitor with an agenda to mitigate any damage to the institutions.
AG Bill Barr talks a good game with the purpose of keeping President Trump’s supporters from recognizing the real threat his presence represents. The only action Barr will ever take is when there is overwhelming, incontrovertible, evidence that breaks through to the public spotlight by independent exposure. Otherwise the objective is to hide the rot and protect the institutions.
On all issues of the domestic and foreign intelligence apparatus: FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, ODNI, Dept of State, etc the office of the presidency is being managed.
Feel free to dispute that assertion; however, dispute with demonstrable facts to back up a counter argument -not trusty planning- try to keep the outlook grounded in provable facts.
An example of fact: Senator Burr was confident a month ago…
As you listen to this please keep in mind that Devin Nunes is the Ranking Member, former Chairman, of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Devin Nunes is increasing his warning tone and signals to Americans.
All nuance, pretense and subtlety is now being dropped. Rep. Nunes is openly stating that FBI officials and FISA judges are working together with the *intent* to conspire againstthe American people. Pause, and let this sink in…. slowly.
Former AG Michael Mukasey appears on Fox News for an interview with Maria Bartiromo. As Mukasey walks through the purpose and intents behind the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages what he outlines is really the motive for Ms. Page to be suing the DOJ and the reason why current FBI Director Chris Wray is covering for them.
Additionally, Mukasey explains the unlawful activity behind HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff gaining the phone records of Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani and John Solomon. The only thing he didn’t mention is that AT&T owns a primary impeachment stakeholder, CNN.
.
BIG PICTURE – Lisa Page’s lawsuit is not about a breech of privacy; that’s the excuse. Lisa Page is working with her Lawfare allies to block the release of unredacted text messages between her and Peter Strzok. The totality of the communication outlines the context of the FBI conspiracy during the 2016 election. That *conspiracy* is what FBI Director Christopher Wray was put in place to hide.
DAG Rosenstein recommended Chris Wray for that exact purpose. Wray then hired David Bowditch as his deputy. Bowditch was/is compromised by his former role in the San Bernadino terrorist attack. Wray then hired Dana Boente as FBI legal counsel. Boente was/is compromised by his prior role in the DOJ-NSD FISA effort, and his role in the capture of Julian Assange to cover-up the false claim of the Russia DNC hack.
Former Congressman and Fox News contributor Trey Gowdy and the Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel react to Jim Comey’s wounded tender sensibilities during Fox News Sunday “interview” with Chris Wallace.
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 