QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; When I raised your name to an investor who was indeed biased toward gold, he said you were a front for bankers trying to keep gold suppressed and sent me an article where they quote you stating bankers are worth every penny they get. Do you tell the press that bankers are worth every penny they get? Is this true?
HT
ANSWER: That article I believe was deliberate FAKE NEWS. It was published in the actual newspaper the night of the debut of the Forecaster in London. I had received numerous people sending in emails telling me that the London Evening Standard was printing an article that contradicted the movie. When I looked online, yes I saw it said, Martin Armstrong. However, the picture was a different person. I responded that no, it was just someone with the same name – not me.
To my shock, clients began sending in photos of the print edition. It was the same story, but in the actual print edition, they used my photograph. Online, they had the other Martin Armstrong. Sure, the London Evening Standard could claim it was just a mistake. Not sure how you have two different pictures and the main print edition carried my photo.
I believe it was FAKE NEWS because it was done the very night that the film was making a huge debut in London. Publishing this article and switching photos was curious given the timing that it was the grand opening for the film the Forecaster.
They seem to have created a huge controversy instead for the film was not only sold-out, but they also had to extend the showing another week because tickets were not even available and lot people were getting angry.
So perhaps the London Evening Standard I believe tried to prevent people from seeing the film and it backfired. That was probably why the film was banned in the United States and Switzerland.
One of the gaping questions that have gone unanswered is why has Mueller not taken Putin up on his offer to go question the Russian intelligence officer he has indicted in Russia? Putin said he would allow Mueller and his team to travel to Russia and be present at the questioning of 12 Russian military intelligence officers the special counsel previously indicted for hacking into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. Putin wanted to question the former American diplomat, Michael McFaul who was appointed by Obama. Interestingly, it was Senator Chuck Schumer who introduced on 07/19/2018 the resolution to deny Putin to question any Americans including Bill Browder. John McCain, the sponsor of the Magnitsky Act, led the charge among Republicans to support Schumer’s resolution to deny any investigation into the Magnitsky affair. The Senate vote was a resounding 98-0 to deny the questioning of ANY Americans by Russia. This is one of the most curious cover-ups in modern history even after the questionable report that was released on the Trump Tower Meeting that was all about the Magnitsky Act.
The tail gets even more interesting when we look closer at the infamous Trump Tower meeting Mueller has been investigating. Russian-born lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin worked closely with the research firm Fusion GPS which commissioned the infamous Steele Dossier on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC to smear Trump and begin the entire Russia-Gate affair. Interestingly, Akhmetshin also attended the infamous Trump Tower meeting.
Natalia Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer who also attended the Trump Tower meeting and in turned US prosecutors later retaliated and charged her with a single count of money laundering. To add further to all of these coincidences, one of the lawyers involved in the Trump Tower meeting was Scott Balber, who also worked on my case and was familiar with the Russian connection involving Edmond Safra and Republic National Bank and his assassination (Death in Monaco). Yet Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya worked with Fusion GPS in an effort to expose the truth behind the Magnitsky Act. Fusion’s main task was investigating Bill Browder, the London-based financier whose lobbying efforts led to the Magnitsky Act passage. (see also the film Behind the Scenes Magnitsky Act)
I have stated many times that I was asked to invest $10 billion into Hermitage Capital by Republic National Bank. Edmond was the major shareholder. This is the fund that Browder claimed he was Putin’s number one enemy and Magnitsky was not a lawyer but an accountant. There would have been no incentive for Putin to have killed Magnitsky for he would have been a witness against the entire cabal of bankers seeking to take over the Russian government by blackmailing Yeltsin to step down and stuff in their puppet Boris Berezovsky, who flees to London when Putin comes in an amazingly interesting incident hangs himself in Britain (see the movie the Forecaster).
The ultimate client for Fusion GPS, Akhmetshin, and Veselnitskaya was Katsyv, whose firm, Prevezon Holdings, which was sued by the Justice Department for allegedly laundering money stolen during the tax fraud scheme uncovered by Magnitsky. Interestingly, Prevezon’s payments to Akhmetshin and Fusion GPS were routed through its U.S. law firm, BakerHostetler. That arrangement was the mirror-image of its work for the Clinton campaign and DNC. On that project, Perkins Coie, the law firm for the Democrats, paid Fusion GPS $1 million to investigate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. BakerHostetler paid Fusion GPS $523,651 in 2016. Entangled in this entire affair is not just Hillary’s paying Fusion GPS to create the dossier on Trump and the strang banning of Ambassador McFaul appointed by Obama and any possible connections with Fusion GPS. Most interesting is the fact that Bill Browder also donated money to Hillary. He donated $17,700 to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
Also entangled deeply is the Bank of New York Money Laundering case for $7 billion and of course the involvement of Republic National Bank working with people in the US Treasury sending skids of $100 bills to Russia in the affair known as the Money Plane.
Here is what CNN Money wrote on September 1st, 1999 12 days before my case began:
The saga that’s brought money laundering issues to the fore this summer allegedly began back in 1994, when Russia’s International Monetary Fund representative, Konstantin Kagalovsky, left the organization to join Menatep Bank in Moscow. Over the next three years, it’s alleged, Kagalovsky arranged to funnel billions of IMF money meant to help transfer Russia’s communist economy into a capitalist one through a private company called Benex Worldwide Ltd. Eventually, the money went into and back out of Bank of New York (BK) and Republic National Bank, a unit of Republic Bancorp (RBNC), as well as several institutions in Europe, including the Union Bank of Switzerland AG and Deutsche Bank AG and its Bankers Trust Unit.
Now the burning question the US press will not address is why does Putin want to question a former American Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who was denied a Russian visa in June 2014 and subsequently banned from entering the country for his supposed “active participation in the destruction of the bilateral relationship and relentless lobbying in favor of a campaign to pressure Russia,” Foreign Ministry officials told Reuters at the time. Essentially, Putin was after U.S. State Department internal memos from 2009 and 2010 drafted in Moscow about the investigation into the Magnitsky case. The Russian agency’s official spokesman, Alexander Kurennoi, told the news agency Interfax that McFaul is one of the Americans suspected of involvement in Browder’s illegal activities alleged by Russia.
Chuck Schumer wants Muller to indict Trump, but he will not allow any investigation into the DNC and Hillary’s involvement in this entire tangled web of intrigue.
Tonight CBS broadcast a painstakingly edited interview between host Scott Pelley and former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
The transparently political CBS media corporation has skin-in-the-game when it comes to broadcast politics.
Former CBS Vice-President David Rhodes is the brother of President Obama’s senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes. You might also remember when CBS 60 Minutes intentionally hid a quote from President Obama when Obama denied the Benghazi attack was carried out by “terrorists” [STORY HERE].
60 Minutes has a history of unethical journalistic conduct in covering for the Obama administration. So it didn’t surprise anyone who follows politics to see Andrew McCabe’s first interview being carried out within this very specific propaganda machine. Here’s a few “non broadcast” portions of the interview.
NOTE at 03:33 of this video snippet a characteristic called “duping delight“: The pleasure of being able to manipulate someone, often made visible to others by flashing a smile at an inappropriate moment. [Watch the moment at precisely 03:33]
In this video segment Andrew McCabe says Rod Rosenstein asked him to contact James Comey for advice about appointing a special counsel — after Comey’s firing:
.
Expanded segment where McCabe describes Rod Rosenstein discussing how to use the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald J Trump:
And don’t forget, Andrew McCabe was also likely the person who leaked the content of the Mike Flynn phone call between Flynn and Russian Abassador Kislyak. A massive leak of classified information:
Within the case against Michael Flynn…. Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, 2017, and then again on May 31st, 2017.
To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)
What the special counsel appears to be obfuscating to the court is there was factually a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview.
Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations. It seemed he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.
We know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):
The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017. The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:
Obviously the interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.
It was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading. The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it.
May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.
Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the DOJ and FBI ‘soft coup’ attempt headed by Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Ratcliffe also discusses the outlook with newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr and what actions he hopes AG Barr will take in the wake of mounting evidence that Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and former Acting AG Sally Yates were coordinating an effort to remove President Donald Trump.
As Andrew McCabe makes current media statements to confirm how he opened a counterintelligence investigation (July 31, 2016) against candidate Donald Trump, and a criminal investigation against President Donald Trump (May 10th, 2017), it is worth reminding ourselves that McCabe also launched a simultaneous criminal investigation against Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
It is also worth noting in both current and prior reporting that it was/is CBS announcing the revelations from Andrew McCabe and his Lawfare team:
FLASHBACK CBS Reports (March 2018) – […] The investigation was opened before special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed, Reid reports. A Justice Department official says Sessions was not aware of this investigation until he found out about it from reports.
ABC News first reported that McCabe had been in charge of the investigation into Sessions. Sessions’ testimony raised alarm bells, but this is the first time it has been reported that there was actually a criminal probe of Sessions’ actions. (read more)
In hindsight it would appear the criminal probe against AG Jeff Sessions was intended to create a firewall that would isolate the Attorney General and keep prying eyes away from the ‘soft coup’ efforts of the seditious small group.
Influential radio host Rush Limbaugh appears on Fox News with Chris Wallace to discuss the necessity of President Trump’s border security declaration; the DOJ and FBI scheme to conduct a ‘soft coup’ against the president; and how the democrat party is positioning themselves for the 2020 election.
The first half of the interview discusses the national security declaration; then the subject shifts to former FBI Deputy Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein and the ‘soft coup’; and then finishes with discussion over the Green New Deal and the likelihood of democrat success in the 2020 election.u
There’s a lot of news this week reflecting a great deal of oppositional alignment against the presidency of Donald Trump. CTH can get down in the weeds of each specific issue to discuss the motives and intents (we will, and do), but the big picture MUST remain at the forefront of understanding. If we lose track of the big picture, the weeds are overwhelming.
…“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”
~ Niccolò Machiavelli
♦POTUS Trump is disrupting the global order of things in order to protect and preserve the shrinking interests of the U.S. middle-class. He is fighting, almost single-handed, at the threshold of the abyss. Our interests, our position, is zero-sum; if POTUS Trump fails, there will never be another available route to confront the Big Club.
President Trump’s aggregate opposition seeks to repel and retain the status-quo. They were on the cusp of full economic control over the U.S. just before candidate Trump snatched away their victory. There are trillions at stake. They won’t make that mistake again.
Summary of Action: President Trump has structured a plan to break down the multinational trade interests, and their “controlled markets.” Step-by-step President Trump is executing this plan; while his opposition, including Mitch McConnell, tries to stop him.
President Trump is disrupting decades of multinational financial interests who use the U.S. as a host for their ideological endeavors. President Trump is confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of the host; the American Middle-Class. There are trillions at stake; it is all about the economics; all else is chaff and countermeasures.
Familiar faces, perhaps faces you previously thought were decent, are now revealing their alignment with larger entities that are our abusers. In an effort to awaken the victim to the cycle of self-destructive codependent behavior, allow me to cue a visual example from U.S. Senator John Thune. WATCH:
.
What South Dakota Senator John Thune is showcasing here is his full alignment with big multinational corporate agriculture (BIG AG).
Big AG is not supporting local farmers. Big AG does not support “free and fair markets.” Big AG supports the interests of multinational corporations and multinational financial interests.
For the multinational interests the U.S. is the host; from an economic nationalism perspective they are the parasite.
It is critical to think of BIG AG in the same way we already are familiar with multinational manufacturing of durable goods.
We are already familiar how China, Mexico and ASEAN nations export our raw materials (ore, coking coal, rare earth minerals etc.). The raw materials are used to manufacture goods overseas, the cheap durable goods are then shipped back into the U.S. for purchase.
It is within this decades-long process where we lost the manufacturing base, and the multinational economic planners (World Trade Organization) put us on a path to being a “service driven” economy.
The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.
Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.
The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the wealth gap has exploded in the past 30 years.
With that familiarity, did you think the multinationals would stop with only “DURABLE GOODS”?
They don’t.
They didn’t.
The exact same exfiltration and exploitation has been happening, with increased speed, over the past 15-20 years with “CONSUMABLE GOODS“, ie food.
Raw material foodstuff is exported to China, ASEAN nations and Mexico, processed and shipped back into the U.S. as a finished product. [Recent example: Salmonella Ritz Bits (whey); Nabisco shuts New Jersey manufacturing plant, moves food production to Mexico… the result: Salmonella crackers.] This is the same design-flow with food as previously exploited by other economic sectors, including auto manufacturing.
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Monsanto, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Bunge, Potash Corp, Cargill or Wilmar, all stay out of the public eye by design. Most megafood conglomerates have roots going back a century or more, but ever-increasing consolidation means that their current corporate owners may have been established only a few years ago. Welcome to the complex world of Big Ag:
Start with the so-called Big Six [PDF]. Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Bayer, and BASF produce roughly three-quarters of the pesticides used in the world. The first five also sell more than half the name-brand seeds that farmers plant, including varieties modified for resistance to the very pesticides they also sell. Meanwhile, if farmers want fertilizer, a list of 10 other companies, starting with PotashCorp, account for about two-thirds of the world market.
Once the plowing, planting, nurturing, and harvesting are done, around 80 percent of major crops pass through the hands of four traders: ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus. These companies aren’t just financiers, of course—Cargill, for example, produces animal feed and many other products, and it supplies more than a fifth of all meat sold in the United States.
And if you ever had any ideas about going vegetarian to avoid the conglomerates, forget about it: ADM processes about a third of all soybeans in the United States and a sixth of those grown around the globe. It also brews more than 5.6 billion liters of ethanol for gasoline and pours more than 2 million metric tons of high-fructose corn syrup every year. And it produces a sixth of the world’s chocolate. {Continue – and go Deep}
Multinational corporations, BIG AG, are now invested in controlling the outputs of U.S. agricultural industry and farmers. This process is why food prices have risen exponentially in the past decade.
The free market is not determining price; there is no “supply and demand” influence within this modern agricultural dynamic. Food commodities are now a controlled market just like durable goods. The raw material (harvests writ large) are exploited by the financial interests of massive multinational corporations. This is “contract farming”.
Again, if President Trump can successfully pull us out of NAFTA your food bill will drop 25% (or more) within the first year. Further, if U.S. supply and demand were to become part of the domestic market price for food, we would see the prices of aggregate food products drop by half. Some perishable food products would predictably drop so dramatically in price it is unfathomable how far the prices would fall.
Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
♦The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
When a liar lies they often have trouble keeping their statements consistent. Former FBI Director Andrew McCabe gave an interview to CBS and wrote an op-ed, a book excerpt, in the Atlantic with outlining a specific sequence of events, dates and statements surrounding the days immediately after James Comey was fired. However, a review of the timeline and the statements he delivered to CBS is contradicted by his prior congressional testimony.
In his published book excerpt (The Atlantic) McCabe outlines a series of contacts and meetings with President Trump on May 9th, 2017, the day Comey was fired, and then again on May 10th, 2017, the following day.
McCabe (Via The Atlantic) On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, my first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI, I sat down with senior staff involved in the Russia case—the investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. As the meeting began, my secretary relayed a message that the White House was calling. The president himself was on the line.
[…] As requested, I went back to the White House that afternoon. The scene was almost identical to the one I had walked into the previous night. (more)
Note “the previous night” would have been Tuesday May 9, 2017, the day Comey was fired. So McCabe met with POTUS the evening of the 9th, and the afternoon of the 10th.
Now listen and watch McCabe discuss with Scott Pelley the date he decided to open the criminal investigation of President Trump under the auspices of obstruction of justice.
The key part begins at 01:00 as McCabe is describing the first meeting with the president in the Oval Office, May 9th, just hours after Comey was fired:
.
McCabe: I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency, and won the election for the presidency, and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage; and that was something that troubled me greatly.
Pelley: How long after that was it you decided to start the obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations involving the President?
McCabe: The next day I met with the teams investigating the Russia cases; and I asked the team to go back and conduct an assessment to determine: where are we with these efforts, and what steps do we need to take going forward? I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion, that were I removed quickly, or reassigned, or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace. I wanted to make sure our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do with without creating a record of why they made that decision.
Recap:
•May 9th, 2017, Comey fired.
•May 9th, 2017, (Evening) McCabe meets with POTUS.
•May 10th, 2017, McCabe meets with his team. Opens “obstruction” investigation.
•May 10th, 2017, (Afternoon) McCabe meets again with POTUS.
That’s the sequence as described by McCabe in his 2019 book excerpt and CBS interview to correspond with his justification for opening up a criminal case of obstruction against the sitting President of the United States.
McCabe’s decision to open a criminal “obstruction” investigation on May 10th, 2017, corresponds with the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages (same dates):
However, on May 11th, 2017, the day after those two meetings with President Trump; and the day after McCabe opened a criminal investigation; McCabe was testifying to congressabout Russia interference in the election. His story was entirely different in 2017.
With the Comey firing still fresh in the headlines McCabe was asked about whether President Trump was obstructing or interfering:
♦Senator Rubio: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you–without going to the specifics of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, 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?
Director McCabe. As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. 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.
…
♦Senator Collins. So has there been any curtailment of the FBI’s activities in this important investigation since Director
Comey was fired?
Director McCabe. Ma’am, we don’t curtail our activities. As you know, are people experiencing questions and are reacting to
the developments this week? Absolutely. Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?
No, ma’am. We continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.
…
♦Senator Heinrich. When did you last meet with the President, Director McCabe?
Director McCabe. I don’t think I’m going to comment on that.
Senator Heinrich. Was it earlier this week?
Director McCabe. I have met with the President this week, but I don’t really want to go into the details of that.
Senator Heinrich. But Russia did not come up?
Director McCabe. That’s correct, it did not.
…
♦Senator Lankford. Thank you. Let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well. Let me hit some high points of some of the things that I’ve heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need for the Russia investigation, is that correct?
Director McCabe. Sir, we believe it’s adequately resourced.
Senator Lankford. Okay, so there’s not limitations on resources? You have what you need? The–the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI? It’s still moving forward?
Director McCabe. The investigation will move forward, absolutely.
Senator Lankford. No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?
Director McCabe. No, sir.
Senator Lankford. Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and
expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey?
Director McCabe. It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.
…
♦Senator Harris. Has–I understand that you’ve said that the White House–that you have not talked with the White House
about the Russia investigation. Is that correct?
On May 11th, 2017, two days after Comey was fired; and after back-to-back days meeting with the President; Andrew McCabe is telling congress not only has President Trump not interfered with -or obstructed- the investigation, but there has been zero discussion between himself, the President, and/or the White House about the FBI investigation.
However, McCabe is now saying he opened the criminal “obstruction” investigation the day prior to his testimony. In 2019 he’s selling an entirely different story and contradicting himself from his 2017 congressional testimony.
Perhaps that series of contradictions explains why McCabe is now “qualifying” his claims from yesterday about discussing the 25th amendment with Rod Rosenstein:
Attorney General William Barr quietly took the oath of office in the oval office today with Chief Justice John Roberts administering and officiating the swearing in. [link]
With the introduction of a fully empowered and confirmed U.S. Attorney General there is likely to be a great deal of speculation about how AG Barr will interact with the seditious conspiracy scandal known collectively as ‘spygate’.
No doubt the tick-tock-boom club will sell more books with declarations of soon to be announced indictments, grand juries, etc. However, as with all political horse trading in DC, the reality of accountability usually falls far away from headline predictions.
Attorney General Barr will be navigating a myriad of high-powered political interests through his office at the Justice Department.
If we presume William Barr is not intending to cover-up for the gross misconduct of the DOJ and FBI, which is a considerable presumption, it will be worth watching how the two camps, Team Obama and Team Clinton, react to the shifted DOJ landscape.
♦ Team Obama consists of: John Brennan, Susan Rice, James Clapper, James Comey, James Rybicki, Loretta Lynch, John Carlin, Samantha Power and all former White House officials.
♦ Team Clinton consists of: ¹Andrew McCabe, ¹Sally Yates, ¹James Baker, ²Mary McCord, ¹Dana Boente, ²David Laufmann, ¹Mike Kortan, ¹Peter Strzok, ¹Lisa Page, ¹Nellie Ohr, ¹Bruce Ohr, ²John Podesta and essentially all of the former DOJ/FBI small group who are also currently operating within the ³Mueller operation and ³Lawfare (Benjamin Wittes) community.
NOTE: Team Clinton has three sub-sets: ¹direct involvement; ²indirect involvement; and ³cover-up.
Each team has unique interests and exposure to the former operations against candidate Donald Trump. Team Obama was more of an assisting co-conspiracy role; and Team Clinton was more of a direct conspiracy/involvement role. Team Clinton has direct legal exposure. Team Obama has indirect legal exposure.
If there is any actual substantive investigation initiated by William Barr:
Generally speaking Team Obama should be anticipated to remain silent, except for those members who now hold media pundit/analyst positions.
Generally speaking Team Clinton will be the most visible as their exposure means they have a need to shape the narrative. [ex. Andrew McCabe]
The media supports both teams; however, if they were forced to chose the media would be far more supportive of team Obama.
If there is an inflection point (big “if”), it will likely come as an outcome of someone (McCabe is most exposed) breaking the code of Omerta from Team Clinton and attempting to implicate someone from Team Obama. In that situation U.S. media will defend team Obama and leave team Clinton at risk.
If the “Spygate” fiasco explodes (TBD), it will be team Clinton’s people who will be exposed in the collateral damage. Team Obama will escape with the help of the media and a more favorable DC alliance willing to protect them. Everyone on Team Clinton knows this.
However, all of that said, it would be remarkable if any of the participating members were actually exposed to legal jeopardy. A far more likely outcome is some backroom deal where both teams agree to being criticized, perhaps publicly – perhaps by the Inspector General, but no-one faces legal exposure….
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is then instructed to ditch the impeachment narrative, Mueller gives an unsatisfying report to Barr, and everyone heads into 2020.
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe launches a pre-planned proactive media blitz timed to coincide with DOJ receiving a new Attorney General. Say what you will about the duplicitous, lying, corrupt and conniving weasels – but they know how to seamlessly execute cunning self-preservation political objectives.
The strategy is as transparent as it is Machiavellian. Andrew McCabe, James Baker and the Lawfare group (Benjamin Wittes, Michael Bromwich et al) had a planned defensive front waiting to roll out; today they pulled the trigger:
.
Team McCabe always knew the biggest legal threat to their corrupt position would be if they lost control of the mechanisms within the DOJ and FBI. The launch of a media blitz, surrounding a book and constructed defense narrative, positions them to claim that any legal action against them now comes from a retaliatory Trump administration and DOJ institution (Barr) carrying out the objectives of the President.
The best way to position themselves legally was/is to go on the attack and then use their attack as a shield from any accountability. This is what we are seeing today.
For almost two years the corrupt career elements within the DOJ and FBI have been hiding the trail of evidence that would expose the McCabe plan to usurp the 2016 election.
They have redacted evidence including the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages; withheld information from congress; stalled and defied requests for documents they used in the construction of their plans; and generally positioned themselves to run out the clock. In all measures they have been stunningly effective thus far.
The McCabe team, in close coordination with the Lawfare group of strategists, forced the recusal of Jeff Sessions and positioned the use of the Mueller investigation as a political shield to cover their tracks. However, with the introduction of William Barr as a new Attorney General, they obviously would lose their most valuable tool. Thus the moves today and in the weeks/months to follow is the next phase of a continual plan for self-preservation to avoid legal accountability.
Using CBS is almost as predictable. Inherently the 2016 and 2017 actions by the corrupt McCabe team were in alignment with the political agenda of the Obama white house. CBS, including Vice-President David Rhodes – brother to Ben Rhodes, has a well documented history of defending the Obama White House from scrutiny. There is a natural alignment of mutual benefit.
It will be interesting to see how McCabe’s lawyer Michael Bromwich, McCabe’s political ally Benjamin Wittes, and McCabe’s fixer/hatchetman/former FBI chief-legal-counsel, James Baker, align their defense narrative moving forward. Obviously McCabe carries the greatest legal risk if full sunlight is placed upon the ‘small group’. That said, it makes sense for them to use the political narrative as their best weapon against any accountability.
How former FBI Director James Comey positions himself will also be a key ‘tell’ to watch for. If Comey remains distant from the McCabe issues then it will appear more likely McCabe will face some measure of legal accountability. If Comey snuggles up to McCabe, or openly defends McCabe, that would indicate McCabe is likely to avoid any substantive trouble.
Moving forward it makes sense the McCabe crew will blur the lines of wrongdoing by attaching their action to current DAG Rod Rosenstein who was a willfully blind participating member, albeit perhaps initially, unwillingly.
Robert Mueller’s ability to hide the gross corruption within the upper levels of the FBI appears to be significantly reduced with the introduction of William Barr, though given the history of what has taken place over the past two years it would be exceptionally naive to put too much faith or hope in Barr.
There’s going to be a great deal of insider horse-trading, positioning, and attempts to deploy leverage to avoid accountability and exposure. Within DC this is known as the Potomac two-step. Each entity trades their leverage for escape routes and no-one is held accountable. So far, through the use of politics, all of their endeavors have been exceptionally successful and little has changed to inject any confidence things will shift.
Today’s roll-out is smart politics for the McCabe team.
The president steps over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he encounters them. Everyone in America saw it when he fired my boss. But I saw it firsthand time and time again.
theatlantic.com
5,232 people are talking about this
Lindsey Graham
✔@LindseyGrahamSC
After Mr. McCabe’s 60 Minutes interview, it is imperative that he, and others, come before @senjudiciary to fully explain how and why a FISA warrant was issued against Carter Page and answer questions about what appears to be, now more than ever, bias against President Trump.
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
ANSWER: That article I believe was deliberate FAKE NEWS. It was published in the actual newspaper the night of the debut of the Forecaster in London. I had received numerous people sending in emails telling me that the London Evening Standard was printing an article that contradicted the movie. When I looked online, yes I saw it said, Martin Armstrong. However, the picture was a different person. I responded that no, it was just someone with the same name – not me.
Centinel2012 