President Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence met earlier today with congressional leadership: House Speaker Paul Ryan, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

[Video and Transcript of remarks below]  When Nancy Pelosi began talking the look on VP Pence’s face is, well, priceless. Additionally, anticipating Pelosi and Schumer are going to hold up the budget by threatening military spending, the ever-strategic Trump invited General Mattis into the discussion so the Democrat leadership could tell him to his face why they would be willing to put American military lives at risk.  Epic.

.

[ Transcript] 3:08 P.M. EST – THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. We’re all here as a very friendly, well-unified group. It’s a well-knit-together group of people. And we hope that we’re going to make some great progress for our country. I think that will happen, and we appreciate it very much.

And, Chuck, Nancy, would you say anything — like to say anything? Chuck?

LEADER SCHUMER: Well, we hope we can come to an agreement. Funding the government is extremely important, helping our soldiers is very important, and helping average citizens is very important.

So we’re here in the spirit of: let’s get it done.

LEADER PELOSI: Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity. We are here to make progress. We have some important issues that we share with you. You have described the opioid crisis in our country, and we want to address that; help our veterans; S-CHIP, children’s health insurance; and, again, all things that have bipartisan support in the Congress.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s very true. Thank you, Nancy, very much. Mitch.

LEADER MCCONNELL: Mr. President, we’re here to reach a bipartisan agreement to finish out the year. And I’m glad that you invited us. I’m happy to be here.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Paul.

SPEAKER RYAN: I’m glad we’re here to resume conversations.

THE PRESIDENT: Mike, you have anything?

LEADER SCHUMER: Each person has said less. (Laughter.)

SPEAKER RYAN: One sentence.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I’m grateful for the leaders of both political parties. This is a time of great opportunity in this country. We’re seeing growth at home, but we have many challenges abroad and many challenges facing the American people.

And I’m more confident than ever, Mr. President, with your leadership and with the good faith of all the people in this room, that before this Christmas we’ll produce real results for the American people that will make America stronger and more prosperous.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. I thought that with what’s going on in the world, I would bring our great military genius/person along and maybe General Mattis could say a couple of words.

SECRETARY MATTIS: It’s an honor to be here with the leaders from the Hill. Sort of the number-one priority for our country is to make certain we protect this Constitution and our way of life. And we’ve got great bipartisan support. I’m confident we’ll walk out of this with it.

THE PRESIDENT: I am too. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.

END 3:11 P.M. EST

Don’t be so caught up watching the granules moving at your feet that you fail to step back and recognize the entire landscape is shifting.  It Has Begun… 

Important remarks today. After a year of careful navigation Captain Trump has now hoisted the Spinnaker and is using massive economic winds to advance ALL ‘America-First’ policy objectives.

[…] “to get it going the way I really want, where we have GDP getting up to 4, 5, and even 6 percent — because I think that’s possible. If you look back in your notes, you’ll say when I said 4 percent, people said that would be years. Well, it’s turned out that I’m right because without the hurricanes this last quarter, we would have hit 4 percent. At 3.3 percent, which was adjusted previously — this is far beyond what anybody thought it would be at. So we’re at 3.3 percent GDP. I see no reason why we don’t go to 4, 5, and even 6 percent. And I don’t want to go beyond that because then it will be criticized if we don’t hit it.

But every time we go up one point, just so you understand, one point means $2.5 trillion, means 10 million jobs. So one point in GDP is an incredible statement. $2.5 trillion for each point, 10 million jobs for each point. And I think we’re going to be going up a lot of points.”

[Transcript] THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you very much for being here. America is prospering again at home and being respected once again all over the world. However, we face many serious threats. Lots of things are happening in our country — lots of very positive things — but we have some things that we have to talk about.

We’re going to be discussing today the situation in North Korea. It will be handled, and it will be handled properly. Many of our brave troops will be spending Christmas overseas. We’re thinking about them. We’re funding them like they haven’t been funded in a long time — best equipment you can get. Our military is getting stronger, and I expect that very soon, I’ll be able to say stronger than ever before. It was very depleted when I got here. It’s not going to be depleted any longer.

So I just want to thank everybody. I want to congratulate Kirstjen Nielsen, who was just confirmed yesterday. Been a long wait and we’re waiting for a lot of others. All of you are waiting for people, or most of you are waiting for people to come in and help. I know from the standpoint of trade, we’re waiting for a lot of our trade representatives to be approved. They just don’t want to do it. The Democrats just don’t want to give us those people. They delay them as long as possible. They take every single minute they can take. It’s not right. But I would like to congratulate our new Secretary of Homeland Security. Kirstjen, good luck.

SECRETARY NIELSEN: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m especially thrilled to report that the Senate passed massive tax cuts and reform. You know about that very well. You’ve covered it — for the most part — accurately, which is surprising for you folks, but that’s okay. (Laughter.) We’re on the verge of a historic victory that cuts taxes for the middle class, for businesses; brings back, probably, an excess of $4 trillion. As you know, we’ve been saying $2.5 trillion for years. Well, that number has greatly expanded. And we’ll be bringing back an excess of $4 trillion. It will be put to work in our country. There will be a lot of jobs being brought back with that money. Right now that money is being spent overseas. It’s not going to be spent overseas anymore.

The House and Senate are now negotiating the final bill, and I cannot wait to sign these giant tax cuts and reforms. I mentioned tax cuts, but it’s also reforms. But I’m looking forward to signing it. It will be the largest tax cuts, by far, in the history of our country.

We’ll be bringing the business tax from 35 all the way down to 20. At 35, it’s the highest in the industrialized world. At 20, we’re on the very low side, so we’ll be very competitive. You look at China, it’s 15 percent. Other countries are 18 percent. Some are 23, 24 percent. The average is actually, of the primary competitors, is actually 23 percent. So we’ll be pretty much below the average, and we’ll be able to compete.

And despite all of that, and despite — before we even get this massive injection — we have a stock market that has hit record highs 81 times since our election victory — 81 times. It’s at a new high right now.

Unemployment is at a 17-year low. Very shortly it’s going to be at a 19-year low. We think the numbers are going to continue to go down. And we’re also getting into the pool of the 100 million people that are not working. That pool is now coming back. As you know, that’s not considered in the low employment numbers, which means we have a lot of people that want to get to work, and that will be working.

Consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. We’ve created nearly 2 million jobs. Think of that — 2 million jobs since Election Day. That’s based on consumer confidence. That’s based on enthusiasm. Every enthusiasm poll, especially for business enthusiasm and job enthusiasm, is at an all-time high.

That’s why companies are coming back into our country. They’re opening up new plants. Most of you have written about — Toyota came back in. We have many car companies coming back in. They’re going to Michigan, they’re going to Ohio, they’re going to the states where they want to be. They can go anywhere they want — South Carolina, North Carolina. But they’re going all over our country. They’re coming back in. We had many years where we had no new plants; we only had closures. Now we have openings, and that means a lot of jobs.

But to get it going the way I really want, where we have GDP getting up to 4, 5, and even 6 percent — because I think that’s possible. If you look back in your notes, you’ll say when I said 4 percent, people said that would be years. Well, it’s turned out that I’m right because without the hurricanes this last quarter, we would have hit 4 percent. At 3.3 percent, which was adjusted previously — this is far beyond what anybody thought it would be at. So we’re at 3.3 percent GDP. I see no reason why we don’t go to 4, 5, and even 6 percent. And I don’t want to go beyond that because then it will be criticized if we don’t hit it.

But every time we go up one point, just so you understand, one point means $2.5 trillion, means 10 million jobs. So one point in GDP is an incredible statement. $2.5 trillion for each point, 10 million jobs for each point. And I think we’re going to be going up a lot of points.

So in order to really keep it going the way I want and the way we all want around this table, we have to get — pass our taxes. I call it “the mixer”. It’s in conference right now, but I call it “the mixer”. I think when it comes out, it’s going to be a beautiful mix.

There are things that I like better in the Senate bill; there are things that I like better in the House bill. I think when they come out, we’ll have some new additions and we’ll have the best of each. I think we’re going to have a fantastic tax bill.

There are very, very few people that aren’t benefiting by it. But there’s that tiny little sliver and we’re going to try to take care of even that very small group of people that just through circumstances maybe don’t get the full benefit of what we’re doing. But the middle class gets a tremendous benefit. And business, which is jobs, gets a tremendous benefit.

We’ll be giving the Cabinet, today, an update on national security and strategy. We’ll also receive briefings on the latest developments in the tax cut negotiations. And Administrator McMahon, who’s done a fantastic job at Small Business Administration — where’s Linda? Linda did a really fantastic job — is helping small businesses in record numbers. And they’ve needed help, really, because of the hurricanes. The hurricanes were devastating.

As I said, GDP — if we didn’t have the hurricanes we would have hit just about 4 [percent] this last — but we had — as you probably know, and probably everybody remembers, we had five really bad ones. And we have a lot of businesses that have been severely hurt and Linda McMahon has done an incredible job in helping those businesses out through the Small Business. So thank you very much, Linda.

So we’re in a great period in this country because jobs are coming back, unemployment is low, business has never been stronger. But we have a military that we have to build. I want to thank General Mattis for doing such a great job with respect to ISIS. He’s knocked the hell out of them. Of course I’ve made it possible with what I’ve let you do, I think. (Laughter.) Wouldn’t you say? But he has done a fantastic job.

He and the military have done a fantastic job with ISIS. They’re essentially knocked out of Syria, knocked out of Iraq. That’s the good news. The bad news — they go all over the place. And I’ll tell you where we don’t want them: We don’t want them here. We don’t want them in our country. Tell them to stay wherever the hell they are. We don’t want them coming back into our country. They do go back into some countries. We don’t want them going into our country. So we’re watching that closely.

So I’d like to wish everyone a really great season. I’d like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy New Year.

And I will tell you that we have a big announcement coming up at one o’clock. Perhaps a couple of you will be there; maybe not. But it’s a big announcement. It’s an announcement concerning Israel and the Palestinians and the Middle East. And I think it’s long overdue. Many Presidents have said they want to do something, and they didn’t do it. Whether it’s through courage or they changed their mind, I can’t tell you. But a lot of people have said we have to do something, and they didn’t do it. So we’ll be talking about that something at one o’clock, and I look forward to seeing you then.

Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Q Mr. President, what will the decision do? How will it help the peace process, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ll talk about it in a little while.

Q Are we going to have a shutdown, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: It could happen. The Democrats are really looking at something that is very dangerous for our country. They are looking at shutting down. They want to have illegal immigrants; in many cases, people that we don’t want in our country. They want to have illegal immigrants pouring into our country, bringing with them crime, tremendous amounts of crime. We don’t want to have that. We want to have a great, beautiful crime-free country. And we want people coming into our country, but we want them to come on our basis. And that’s why we’re being so careful with our process and our screening.

And, as you know, we had a tremendous victory the other day in the Supreme Court with the ban. It got quite a bit of attention. Probably not as much of attention as it deserved. But we had tremendous — that was a tremendous victory for this country. Not a victory for me; it was a victory for our country.

So the Democrats maybe will want to shut down the country because they want people flowing into our country. And I want people coming into our country, but I want to vet those people, and I want to vet them very carefully. Because we dont want to have radical Islamic terrorism in this country, and we dont want to have crime in this country.

If you look at what just happened in San Francisco, that was a disgrace. And, as you know, the federal government just got involved and did a great thing, because they’re going to take that at least to the next step. They did a great thing by getting involved.

So thank you very much. I’ll see you all at one o’clock.

END 11:50 A.M. EST

A rather interesting New York Times article describes life in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) now that interim Director Mick Mulvaney is leading the agency. Actually, one of the more interesting aspects is how congressional defenders of the CFPB have claimed the workforce is non-partisan, yet for some mysterious reason the mostly Millenials are described as using coded messaging.

Keep in mind, these are presumably college educated young professionals:

New York Times […] Some employees, including a few of the bureau’s top officials, have welcomed their new leader. Others, pointing to Mr. Mulvaney’s earlier hostility toward the agency and its mission, are quietly resisting. One small group calls itself “Dumbledore’s Army,” according to two of the people who were familiar with their discussions. The name is a reference to a secret resistance force in the “Harry Potter” books.

An atmosphere of intense anxiety has taken hold, several employees said. In some cases, conversations between staff that used to take place by phone or text now happen almost exclusively in person or through encrypted messaging apps.

Mr. Mulvaney has begun examining lawsuits filed by the agency and its process of gathering information from companies under investigation. The bureau’s so-called demand letters — an investigative tool used in the early stages of investigations — are “fairly broad and fairly burdensome,” he told reporters on Monday.  (read more)

The CFPB is the product of far-left progressives, specifically Elizabeth Warren, initially setting up a financial control agency that operates without congressional oversight. The Bureau construct was previously challenged in court and ruled ‘unconstitutional’.

The CFPB was essentially created to work as a legal money laundering operation for progressive causes by fining financial institutions for conduct the CFPB finds in violation of their unilateral and arbitrary rules and regulations. The CFPB then use the proceeds from the fines to fund progressive organizations and causes. That’s the underlying reason why the Democrats are fraught with anxiety over losing control of it.

♦ #1 Conceived as a government watchdog, with aims to financially fill the coffers of left-wing activist organizations, the CFPB was doomed by an Elizabeth Warren structure that made it an inherently political agency. READ HERE

♦ #2 The sad and sick joke – how the face of the CFPB’s first director falsely claimed caring about consumers, but the reality was entirely political. READ HERE

Elizabeth Warren set up the bureau to operate above any oversight. Additionally, the bureau was placed under spending authority of the federal reserve. The CFPB gets its operating budget from the Federal Reserve, not from congress. Again, this was set-up to keep congress from defunding the agency as a way to remove it. Everything about the way the CFPB was structured was done to avoid any oversight. Hence, a DC circuit court finding the agency held too much power, and deemed the Directors unchecked position unconstitutional.

Mick Mulvaney is now in a position to look at the books, look at the prior records within the bureau, and expose the political agenda within it to the larger public. That is sending the progressives bananas.

Most likely President Trump will not appoint a replacement until Mulvaney has exposed the corruption within the bureau. That sunlight is toxic to Elizabeth Warren and can potentially be politically destructive to the Democrats. If the secrets within the bureau are revealed, there’s a much greater likelihood the bureau will be dissolved.

There are billions of scheme and graft at stake. Within the record-keeping there are more than likely dozens of progressive/Democrat organizations being financed by the secret enterprise that operates without oversight. That’s the risk to the SWAMP.

BACKSTORY:

• CFPB Financial Control Schemes (big picture)
• CFPB Financial Control Schemes (Some Details)
• President Trump appoints Mick Mulvaney as interim director for CFPB
• Elizabeth Warren goes bananas.
• DOJ Office of Legal Counsel agrees with President Trump
• CFPB Internal Legal Counsel Agrees with President Trump
• Mick Mulvaney first day on the job
• Mick Mulvaney holds a press conference (video)
• DOJ files response to Leandra English
• Federal Judge rules in favor of Trump Administration

The TDS-media are fraught with misinformation on this issue.

In 1995, Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, requiring the movement of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The act said that Jerusalem should be undivided and be recognized as the capital of Israel. The legislation passed 93-5 in the Senate, and 374-37 in the House of Representatives. (link)

Following passage, all subsequent Presidents’ never carried through with the law; each signing national security waivers to delay moving the U.S. Embassy.

The most recent waiver lapsed at midnight last night; President Trump did not extend another waiver. It is now reported that President Trump has been in discussions with various mid-east leaders to notify them of his plan to follow through on the Jerusalem Embassy Act with a six month phase-in. President Trump will deliver a speech tomorrow outlining the plans.

Ironically, the opposition to President Trump is now claiming such a move will undermine his efforts at negotiating a peace-resolution between Israel and their Arab neighbors. The irony stems from those same voices claiming for a year that any Trump effort to negotiate a peace-deal was an exercise in futility. How can President Trump derail a peace-plan those same voices previously claimed never existed? See the pretzel-logic?

WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM (Reuters) – President Donald Trump told Arab leaders on Tuesday that he intends to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a decision that breaks with decades of U.S. policy and risks fueling violence in the Middle East.

Senior U.S. officials have said Trump is likely on Wednesday to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital while delaying relocating the embassy from Tel Aviv for another six months, though he is expected to order his aides to begin planning such a move immediately.

U.S. endorsement of Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem as its capital would reverse long-standing U.S. policy that the city’s status must be decided in negotiations with the Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the entire city, home to sites holy to the Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, who all received phone calls from Trump, joined a mounting chorus of voices warning that unilateral U.S. steps on Jerusalem would derail a fledgling U.S.-led peace effort and unleash turmoil in the region. (read more)

Remember an important aspect to international policy and engagement on this issue: ‘Each of the aforementioned voices has a domestic audience‘.  There is no doubt prior to this decision the primary members of the peace coalition held lengthy discussions on the topic.  Each would know it was a matter of when, not if, President Trump was going to fulfill this important campaign promise; accurate communication is one of President Trump’s strongest attributes.

Only President Trump is confident and strong enough to withstand the potential backlash.  Never forget what President Fattah Abdel al-Sisi previously shared about his view on the new dynamic President Trump brings to the region.

In the final analysis, the overarching trait that all players respect is ‘strength’.  However, President Trump is not approaching the move from a position of disrespecting the concerns of the partners.

[…] But U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Trump was expected to sign a national security waiver – as have his predecessors – keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv for another six months but would commit to expediting a move. It was unclear, however, whether he would set a date.

The Trump administration would need time to overcome logistical issues such as lack of a secure embassy building and staff housing in Jerusalem, according to one U.S. official. (more)

OK, before going further, we need to step back and take a look at how deeply enmeshed Deputy Head of Counterintelligence FBI Agent Peter Strzok was to this entire FBI investigative enterprise.

•Peter Strzok was the lead FBI agent in charge of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. •Agent Peter Strzok was one of a small group who interviewed Hillary Clinton. •Agent Strzok was also the FBI contact person to receive the Russian Dossier and interview the author Christopher Steele.  [Remember, Hillary Clinton’s team paid Christopher Steele (via Fusion GPS) to create the dossier.] •Agent Strzok was the primary counterintelligence investigator for the ‘vast Russian conspiracy’, narrative.  •Agent Strzok was then hired by Robert Mueller to lead the FBI investigative efforts into  the “Russian Election Collusion/Conspiracy.”  •Agent Strzok was removed from the Mueller Team after the anti-Trump/pro-Clinton content of his internal communications were discovered by the current Inspector General investigation….

…and today we discover that Deputy Head of Counterintelligence, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was the person who interviewed National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn on January 24th, 2017.  An interview, that blindsided Flynn because there was no advanced notification…. And an interview that was the basis for the recent Robert Mueller charging of Flynn.

Good grief, it’s no wonder why the FBI desperately tried to control a pending IG release by advance-scripting a narrative, via leaks to the New York Times and Washington Post.

If FBI Agent Strzok can be shown to have conflicting political and institutional bias, then every aspect of the investigation he was involved in comes into question… and Agent Strzok is at the EPICENTER of every angle, within every aspect, of EVERY investigation.

SARA CARTER – A supervisory special agent who is now under scrutiny after being removed from Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office for alleged bias against President Trump also oversaw the bureau’s interviews of embattled former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, this reporter has learned.

FBI agent Peter Strzok was one of two FBI agents who interviewed Flynn, which took place on Jan. 24, at the White House, said several sources. The other FBI special agent, who interviewed Flynn, is described by sources as a field supervisor in the “Russian Squad, at the FBI’s Washington Field Office,” according to a former intelligence official, with knowledge of the interview.

[…]  The former U.S. intelligence official told this reporter, “with the recent revelation that Strzok was removed from the Special Counsel investigation for making anti-Trump text messages it seems likely that the accuracy and veracity of the 302 of Flynn’s interview as a whole should be reviewed and called into question.”

“The most logical thing to happen would be to call the other FBI Special Agent present during Flynn’s interview before the Grand Jury to recount his version,” the former intelligence official added.

[…]  According to another source, with direct knowledge of the Jan. 24 interview, McCabe had contacted Flynn by phone directly at the White House. White House officials had spent the “earlier part of the week with the FBI overseeing training and security measures associated with their new roles so it was no surprise to Flynn that McCabe had called,” the source said.

McCabe told Flynn “some agents were heading over (to the White House) but Flynn thought it was part of the routine work the FBI had been doing and said they would be cleared at the gate,” the source said.

“It wasn’t until after they were already in (Flynn’s) office that he realized he was being formally interviewed. He didn’t have an attorney with him,” they added.  Flynn’s attorney Robert Kelner did not respond for comment.

… [Justice Department Spokesperson] Isgur Flores said in a written statement to this reporter that the Justice Department provided the House Intelligence committee and leadership with “several hundred pages of classified documents and multiple briefings—including, for example, clear answers as to whether any FBI payments were made to a source in question related to the dossier—and has more recently cleared key witnesses they have requested to testify, including Mr. McCabe, Mr. Strzok, and the alleged handler in question.”  (read more)

Many people have asked the question why would Michael Flynn have lied about talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the first place?

It’s a great question.

The Occam’s Razor answer is the toxic political environment that existed in January 2017, where the administration was being hammered by a tsunami of media narratives and political opposition claiming that any scintilla of contact with anything Russian meant that Putin and Trump were “colluding” BFFs,…. and Flynn didn’t want to fuel that nonsense.

That’s really the only reason to mislead about Russian contacts.

And/or once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised; so Flynn had to stick to it without clarification.

Reminder:

•Sunday January 15th – VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]

JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing. Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contact with the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?

MIKE PENCE: Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)

[*NOTE* Notice the narrative questioning at the time (early Jan) was framed that ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians.]

•Friday January 20th – Inauguration

•Tuesday January 24th – Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn was interviewed at the WH by the FBI.

♦[Either Flynn contradicts Pence, or he tells a lie, those were his options.]

•Wednesday January 25th –  The Department of Justice received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”

•Thursday January 26th – (morning) Yates called McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.

•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon)  Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, Bill Priestap, who was overseeing the matter.  This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).

Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”

According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Bill Priestap reportedly presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate.  When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”

Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.”  According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”

•Friday January 27th – (morning)  White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.

•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon.  One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.

Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions McGahn asked Yates was, “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.

McGahn expressed his concern that taking action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t. “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates had told McGahn.

McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”

•Friday January 27th – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation.

Now, accepting the politicization of the entire Russian Conspiracy Narrative that was leading the headlines for the two months prior to this dinner; and knowing moments earlier your Chief White House counsel informs you that two political operatives (Yates and Priestap) within the DOJ were providing classified intelligence reports about General Flynn; and knowing the prior months (Nov/Dec/Jan) were fraught with leaks from intelligence reports identical to those discussed;  wouldn’t you perhaps think that any action you take could be utilized to add fuel to this Russian narrative?  And/Or be used by these same leak facilitators to make something seem like something it is not?

Think about it.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has charged Flynn (full pdf below) with falsely telling FBI agents that he did not ask the ambassador “to refrain from escalating the situation” in response to the sanctions.

According to the plea, while being questioned by FBI agents on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied when he claimed he could not recall a subsequent conversation with Kislyak, in which the ambassador told Flynn that the Putin regime had “chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of [Flynn’s] request.”

Furthermore, a week before the sanctions were imposed, Flynn had also spoken to Kislyak, asking the ambassador to delay or defeat a vote on a pending United Nations resolution. The criminal information charges that Flynn lied to the FBI by denying both that he’d made this request and that he’d spoken afterward with Kislyak about Russia’s response to it.

There was nothing wrong with the incoming national-security adviser’s having meetings with foreign counterparts or discussing such matters as the sanctions in those meetings. However, lying to the FBI is the process crime that has led to Flynn’s admissions herein:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/366062176/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-QHaNTpsHk3My0BRqqECU

As we have shared from the beginning – this is all about DC politics, not judicial crimes in the same vein as everyone else would be charged.

You cannot view the current action through the transactional prism of modern judicial proceedings as they relate to you and me. These are political struggles taking place inside the venue of the legal system. The players use the legal system to game out the optics and narrative of political battles for ideological wins and losses.

In essence, this is about leverage for political use.

Nothing about the current dynamic is factually encompassing President Trump; it is all about optics, narratives and political leverage. However, everything about this dynamic is factually encompassing the existential threat that outsider Trump represents to the established way of life in the DC Swamp.

Again, if you drop the legal prism and review everything from the perspective of gaining or losing political leverage it all makes sense.

♦Here’s my Twitter Thread on “WHY FLYNN LIED” – CLICK HERE

♦Here’s my Twitter Thread on “WHY RECENT IG STATEMENT IS IMPORTANT” – HERE