White House Trade and Manufacturing Advisor Peter Navarro has an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss potential U.S. supply chain issues and the need to reorient our medical equipment manufacturing back to North America. As Navarro highlights the Chinese communist govt recently nationalized an American medical manufacturing company and commandeered all of their products. An important discussion.
Additionally, Navarro discusses the ongoing administration effort to combat incoming fake products from China still estimated to be over ten percent of all imports.
Representative John Ratcliffe appears with Maria Bartiromo to answer questions about thefraudulent information within an intelligence briefing last week and the House democrats weaponizing a false narrative. Ratcliffe points fingers toward Adam Schiff for manufacturing the false media assertions & perpetuating a hoax on the American people.
Additionally Mr. Ratcliffe notes the upcoming reauthorization of FISA authority is taking place under a cloud of abuse by government officials and a host of deep state resistance interests who do not want to admit abuse within the FISA system.
.
In December of 2019 congress buried the short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act. As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020. [Backstory]
And now for something completely different. Meme creator @mad_liberals has created a brilliant expanded meme video of Peshwa Warrior President Trump. WATCH:
Against the backdrop of a then pending OIG FISA report, in December of 2019 buried deep in the congressional budget Continuing Resolution (CR) was a short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.
As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020:
FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA bulk database collection program being exploited for unauthorized reasons. For the past several years no corrective action taken by the intelligence community has improved the abuses outlined by the FISA court. The sketchy programs, and abuse therein, needs more public attention.
However, there is now a confluence of events highlighting a likelihood congress and the intelligence apparatus writ large want to reauthorize the FISA surveillance and collection authorities without further sunlight and without public input. Here’s what’s going on….
AG Bill Barr is scheduled to meet with key Senators next week. While the media are attributing and framing the meeting toward Trump activity, it is more than likely one key purpose of the upcoming meeting is AG Barr advocating for quiet FISA renewal.
Keep in mind the deadline for the DOJ to respond to the FISA court about the abusive intelligence practices identified in the Horowitz report was February 5th, more than two weeks ago. The responses from the DOJ and FBI have not been made public.
My suspicion is a quiet agreement exists between the DOJ/FBI and FISA Court. It appears the DOJ is trying to get the FISA reauthorization passed before the FISC declassifies the corrective action outlined from the prior court order. This response would also include information about the “sequestering” of evidence gathered as a result of the now admitted fraudulent and misrepresented information within the FISA applications.
With that in mind, it is NOT accidental the Wall Street Journal publishes an article today about AG Barr’s position on FISA reauthorization. The White House wants structural reform; it appears the DOJ and FBI want considerably less than that.
WASHINGTON—Senior White House officials are discussing an overhaul of the government’s surveillance program for people in the U.S. suspected of posing a national-security risk, spurred in part by President Trump’s grievances about an investigation of a 2016 campaign adviser, according to people familiar with the matter.
The effort seeks to take advantage of the looming expiration of some spying powers next month, including portions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a Watergate-era law that Mr. Trump believes was improperly used to target his campaign, these people said.
Overhauling FISA has become a rallying cry for conservatives and allies of the president in the aftermath of a watchdog report detailing several errors made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its applications for surveillance of Mr. Trump’s campaign adviser, Carter Page. Some Republicans have called for upending FISA, prompting pushback from some in the administration, including Attorney General William Barr.
The plan, which is being spearheaded by officials within the White House Domestic Policy Council, is in the early stages and could face resistance from other parts of the Trump administration, including the National Security Council, which has generally advocated maintaining or expanding surveillance powers during Mr. Trump’s presidency.
Some administration officials have privately raised concerns that the new FISA effort could go too far, but officials working on the plan countered that they don’t intend to undermine the government’s core surveillance powers.
[…] Mr. Trump hasn’t expressed any public opinion on the coming expiration of the spying powers, but he has been a harsh critic of the government’s surveillance powers and has privately encouraged his advisers to develop a policy response to the surveillance of Mr. Page, the people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Trump feels personally victimized by the FISA process and the intelligence agencies that he oversees and some of the White House officials see a political opening for an overhaul.
“We were abused by the FISA process; there’s no question about it,” Mr. Trump told reporters this month. “We were seriously abused by FISA.”
[…] Some senior administration officials, including Mr. Barr, are hesitant to make major changes to existing intelligence law, people familiar with the matter said.
Mr. Barr has said the current FISA process needs more oversight from the Justice Department, in light of the inspector general report, but has defended the law itself as essential for national security.
“We are committed to preserving FISA and we think all Americans should be committed to preserving FISA,” Mr. Barr told reporters in December. “It is essential to protect the security of the United States.”
Mr. Barr has called FISA a “critical tool” and vowed to preserve it after some Republicans suggested the future of the law was in jeopardy following the inspector general’s report. (more)
With the terminal deadline for FISA reauthorization rapidly approaching; and with serious abuses identified within the system of the FISA court, specifically as they pertain to the targeting of American citizens; there have been no public hearings or congressional discussions about the FISA process and the outlined fourth amendment violations.
Earlier today exiting House Judiciary Ranking member Doug Collins (being replaced by Jim Jordan) appeared on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo and warned of House mark-up hearings to advance the renewal without any public input or reform discussion. WATCH:
.
Congress always waits until the last-minute to act on important issues.
The FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], again all parts of the Patriot Act, must not be reauthorized without a full public vetting of the abuses that have taken place for the past several years.
It is important that we contact our representatives and inform them of the need for full sunlight upon all prior activity; including the declassification of documents showing how the system has been abused; before any reauthorization is considered.
The DOJ/FBI response to the FISA court needs to be made public. To better understand the scale of the issue, the consequences when the system is abused, the upstream sequester material needs to be made public. Additionally with all of the information now known to exist, the White House needs to pressure the intelligence community to declassify both the Collyer report from 2017 and the Boasberg report from 2019.
Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr? Daniel Richman?] This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer – SEE HERE]
The fourth amendment is being violated by the continued abuse of bulk metadata collection, and government officials illegally accessing the system. This needs to be stopped.
My suggestion would be to let the authorizations expire and do not allow reauthorization until full public sunlight is delivered, and the larger conversation with the American people is fully engaged. Perhaps that is a naive or futile suggestion; however, everything begins with being informed… Now You Know !
Against the latest revelations that Ms. Shelby Pierson in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, manufactured false and misleading briefing material on Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election, it is interesting to watch the mainstream media create fake news stories attempting to exploit Ms. Pierson’s falsehoods.
During a pre-taped broadcast CBS’s Margaret Brennan questions National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien about the now identified false briefing material that was never shared with the White House prior to misrepresenting the intelligence to congress. WATCH (transcript below):
.
[Transcript] – PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They’re trying to start a rumor. It’s disinformation. That’s the only thing they’re good at, that Putin wants to make sure I get elected. Listen to this. So, doesn’t he want to see who the Democrat’s going to be? Wouldn’t he rather have, let’s say, Bernie, wouldn’t he rather have Bernie who honeymooned in Moscow?
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s the President at a Friday rally in Las Vegas claiming that reports of Russia interfering in his favor was Democratic disinformation. When we were in Las Vegas Saturday I spoke with the White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, who was in our Washington studio. I asked him if he had assured the President that this particular U.S. intelligence finding was real. He strongly disputed it.
ROBERT O’BRIEN (National Security Adviser): Well, I have not seen the finding. I think what he is referring to and what folks are talking about is a briefing that took place last week at the House Intelligence Committee that was leaked to the press. And I– I have not seen that report. I get this second hand, but from Republican congressmen that were in the committee, there was no intelligence behind it. I haven’t seen any intelligence to support the reports that were leaked out of the House.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But the White House was briefed on February 14th. Were you not in that briefing when the President was informed?
ROBERT O’BRIEN: Well, there’s no briefing that I have received, that the President has received, that says that President Putin is doing anything to try and influence the elections in favor of President Trump. We just haven’t seen that intelligence. If it’s out there, I haven’t seen it. I’d be surprised if I haven’t seen it. The leaders of our– the IC have not seen it. So I– again, I don’t know where this is coming from. I’ve heard these rumors and these leaks from Adam Schiff’s committee, but I– I have not seen them myself and I’ve seen no intelligence along those lines.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But just to clarify, are you saying that Joseph Maguire, the former acting director of National Intelligence, did not inform you about the U.S. Intelligence Committee’s– community’s findings?
ROBERT O’BRIEN: No. I, look, I think, you know, and again, I– I don’t want to get into private conversations in a– in a presidential daily brief, but I– I don’t think Admiral Maguire was necessarily informed of what was going to happen at that hearing in the House either. And– and again, there’s nothing that he’s given up– no information Admiral Maguire gave us, Gina Haspel has given us– Director Haspel, Ambassador Grenell the new acting DNI, that comports with what was leaked out of that House Intel Committee. So I haven’t seen it. The leaders of the– of the intelligence community that I have spoken with haven’t seen anything that comports with what was leaked out. But, again, those leaks, I don’t know if that’s what the briefers told the House committee. I mean those were just simply leaked–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But– well, that– that’s contradicted by reports that the director of National Intelligence, Maguire, did brief White House officials. But, more broadly, the FBI director at the beginning of the month, Chris Wray, testified that Russia continues to try to influence the elections mainly through social media manipulation. So, this pattern of behavior has continued, Russia is undeterred. Are you denying that that is happening?
ROBERT O’BRIEN: No, no. What I– look I– what I have heard from the FBI, you know– well, what I’ve heard is that Russia would like Bernie Sanders to– to win the Democrat nomination. They’d probably like him to be President, understandably, because he wants to– to spend money on social programs and probably would have to take it out of the military, so that would make sense. And– and, look, the Russians have always tried to interfere with elections because they want to divide Americans. They want to undermine our democracy. But the idea that they want to– they want to influence the election and somehow cause the President to win, I just don’t see it. But, look, I think there are a number of countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, that would like to influence our elections to– to get the candidate that they feel would be best for their country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are saying that it is not, in fact, the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia has a preference for President Trump?
ROBERT O’BRIEN: I– I have not seen that. And– and again, why would they have a preference for President Trump, who is rebuilding our military, who is giving the Ukrainians lethal aid to fight Russian troops? So that doesn’t make sense. Now, look, we want good relations with Russia. We’d like to have great relations with Russia. I haven’t seen any intelligence that there’s any active measures by the Russians to try and get the President re-elected. And– and we’ve got a simple message for the Russians or any other country that wants to– to meddle in our elections, whoever they are behind: stay out of our democratic elections. And– and we’re doing everything we can. We’re working with state and local officials. We’re going, in many cases–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you–
ROBERT O’BRIEN: –to paper ballots to make sure that– that, you know, governments with ill intent can’t hack secretary of state websites, can’t get involved in our elections, change results. And– and we’re going to work on election security very, very hard through– across the interagency in the federal government and also with our state and– and local partners.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not have the intelligence community testify in public about what they are seeing, so that the public can arm themselves, so that they can understand what is disinformation and what is fact?
ROBERT O’BRIEN: Look I–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not declassify some of those?
ROBERT O’BRIEN: I’d– I’d have no problem with that. And– and– but that’s not my decision. And the intelligence community is– is very concerned and– and careful about sources and methods and I understand that. But I– I would personally have no problem with–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But back in 20– back in 2016 in October of 2016, when Russia was doing this disinformation campaign, the Obama administration did declassify information at that time. So there is a precedent. Why doesn’t the Trump administration do that?
ROBERT O’BRIEN: I think if there’s intelligence that we can declassify that– that we can get out there all the better, because, again, we weren’t in office in 2016 when– when the last election meddling took place and the administration did very little about it. And– and they– you know everyone admits that– that very little was done about it. We’re in office now and we’re doing everything we can across the interagency and– with our state and federal and local partners to– to ensure that– that American ballots are secure, that– that are our– our ballot machines are secure, that tabulations are secure, that– that state, secretary of state websites are secure. We want to make sure that this is a free and fair election, that Americans select their next President, not some foreign country. And– and we’re going to do– and the President’s been deadly serious about that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I– I want to quickly ask you, though, about Afghanistan. If the Taliban does not make good on its promise to pull back on violence, to sign this deal at the end of the month, is the President positioned to stop the troop withdrawal?
ROBERT O’BRIEN: The President made it very clear the last time we were closed to signing a deal with the Taliban and they– they engaged in some malign activity, they– they had a vehicle-borne IED that killed a number of people, including one American, and the President pulled back from signing the deal. We’re hopeful that– that we can get to a– a place where the Afghans can talk with each other and negotiate some sort of resolution, a political resolution of the conflict. We’ve been there nineteen years. It’s time for us to stop bringing our– our sons and daughters home through Dover Air Force Base and dignified transfers. We’ve got to get out of– of the war in Afghanistan, but we’re going to do it in a way that protects American interests. So if the Taliban does not live up to their agreement on the reduction of violence plan, then we’ll take a very care– careful look at them. I think it’d be unlikely that we’d– we’d sign a peace treaty, but we’re not going to reduce troops to a level below what is necessary to protect American interests and our partners in Afghanistan. I can assure you of that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. Ambassador O’Brien, thank you for joining us.
ROBERT O’BRIEN: Always great to be here, Margaret.
Sending shockwaves through the intelligence community, it was reported yesterday that newly appointed Acting DNI Richard “Ric” Grenell asked the intelligence community, specifically including Shelby Pierson, to produce the underlying intelligence within the briefing she gave to the House Intelligence Committee.
Well, what do you know…. All of a sudden today, anonymous intelligence officials are reporting to CNN that Ms. Pierson “overstepped” her position, was “misleading” in her briefing, and “mischaracterized” the underlying intelligence. Imagine that.
Washington (CNN)-The US intelligence community’s top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN.
The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.
[…] “The intelligence doesn’t say that,” one senior national security official told CNN. “A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it’s a step short of that.
[…] One intelligence official said that Pierson’s characterization of the intelligence was “misleading” and a national security official said Pierson failed to provide the “nuance” needed to accurately convey the US intelligence conclusions.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where Pierson is a senior official, did not respond to CNN’s request for comment. (more)
Why would Shelby Pierson and Joseph Maguire intentionally blindside the White House?
The briefing was obviously spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and democrats on the House intel committee; and there was no intelligence presented during the briefing to support the claims made by Pierson, Democrats and media.
If it seems like CNN just stumbled into the journalism thing, don’t react too quickly. The underlying motive for CNN to narrate truthfully on this example is simply to get Ms. Pierson fired (which she should be). If Pierson is fired, CNN will most likely jump back on the bandwagon of President Trump helping Russia again.
…”these are sick people we’re talking about. Really sick people.”…
Sooner or later Ms. Bartiromo is going to have to call Senator Graham to task for his delays, obfuscations and can-kicking. During an interview this morning Maria Bartiromo asks Lindsey Graham about whether he is actually going to hold the hearings he has discussed for over six months. Graham’s response isn’t exactly inspiring confidence.
One of Graham’s “problems” per se’, is the reality that many members of the Senate, including John McCain, Richard Burr, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and later Mark Warner, participated in the events in/around the intelligence targeting of candidate -then President- Donald Trump. About mid-way through this interview it appears Bartiromo recognizes Graham is professionally can-kicking once again. WATCH:
Chopper pressers are the best pressers. Earlier today President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump departed the White House heading to Ramstein Air Base in Germany on the first leg of their trip to India. As the president departs he paused to answer a variety of questions from the media. [Video Below, UPDATE Transcript added]
Q What’s your message to the people of India today?
Q (Inaudible) win for Bernie Sanders?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it was a great win for Bernie Sanders. We’ll see how it all turns out. They’ve got a lot of winning to do. I hope they treat him fairly. Frankly, I don’t care who I run against. I just hope they treat him fairly. I hope it’s not going to be a rigged deal because there’s a lot of bad things going on. And I hope it’s not going to be one of those. So we’ll see what happens.
But I congratulate Bernie Sanders. And if it’s going to be him, he certainly has a substantial lead. We’ll see what happens.
Q Have you been briefed that Russia is trying to help Bernie Sanders? And if so, what’s your message to Putin? Are you comfortable with him intervening?
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody said it. I read where Russia is helping Bernie Sanders. Nobody said it to me at all. Nobody briefed me about that at all. What they try and do is — certain people like certain people to have information. No different than it’s been.
But I have not been briefed on that at all. Nobody told me about it. They leaked it. Adam Schiff and his group — they leaked it to the papers and — as usual. They ought to investigate Adam Schiff for leaking that information. He should not be leaking information out of intelligence. They ought to investigate Adam Schiff.
Q Are you trying to block the publication of Bolton’s book?
THE PRESIDENT: You’ll have to ask the Attorney General. I don’t know where it stands. But you’ll have to ask the Attorney General.
Q Did you call him a traitor? Mr. President, did you call him a traitor?
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q Do you believe that Russia is trying to interfere to help Bernie Sanders?
THE PRESIDENT: You’ll have to ask Bernie Sanders that. I mean, he’d know better than me. I have not been briefed to that effect. But you’ll have to ask Bernie Sanders.
Q Are you concerned about Russian interference?
THE PRESIDENT: I think what it could be is, you know, the Democrats are treating Bernie Sanders very unfairly. And it sounds to me like a leak — a leak from Adam Schiff, because they don’t want Bernie Sanders to represent them. It sounds like it’s ’16 all over again for Bernie Sanders.
And he won. He had a great victory yesterday. But you know what’s happening. You can see the handwriting on the wall. And I watched last time, with respect to him. And they might’ve tried to do it with me, but I was able to catch it. That would be a terrible thing if that were the case.
Q Vladimir Putin said the other day that other countries are trying to split Russia and Ukraine apart, and if they came together, they would absolutely be a world superpower — Ukraine and Russia. What do you make of President Putin’s comments?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’d like to see them come together. I think if they came together in the sense that they got along with each other, that would be a great thing. It would be a great thing for the world. If Ukraine and Russia could work out some agreement where they get along, to me that would be very good.
Q (Inaudible) Mick Mulvaney as the Chief of Staff?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Sure. He’s here now. Sure. No problem.
Q Mr. President, what’s your updated thinking about a pardon for Roger Stone?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve seen a very sad thing going on with respect to Roger Stone. You have a juror that’s obviously tainted. She was an activist against Trump. Said bad things about Trump and said bad things about Stone.
And she somehow wheedled her way onto the jury. And if that’s not a tainted jury, then there is no such thing as a tainted jury. I think it’s a disgrace. And I could say plenty more about that whole situation, but I’ll hold it.
I don’t know why they gave a judgment — why the judge ruled prior to ruling on that. Because, in theory, you should rule on that and then you see what happens. But the judge gave a sentence without discussing that, and I guess she’s going to bring that up at a later date.
But I do think this: That juror is so biased and so tainted that that shouldn’t happen in our criminal justice system. That’s for sure.
Q What if he doesn’t get a new trial? What if she says no new trial? What are you going to do?
THE PRESIDENT: We’ll see what happens.
Q Who will you nominate for Director of National Intelligence?
THE PRESIDENT: We have four or five people that are great, very respected. In the meantime, we have our Ambassador to Germany who is a very smart person. And he’s doing a great job.
Q Who’s on the list?
THE PRESIDENT: I can’t tell you yet, but I’ll be announcing it very —
Q Why did you dismiss Maguire? Why did you dismiss him? Were you unhappy with him?
THE PRESIDENT: His time came up. You know, I think it was — March 11th, his time comes up. He ran out of time. Because on March — I think it was a date of March 11th. He’s a very nice man. His time came up, so he had to leave on March 11.
Q What is your message to the people of India? You are traveling to India today. What is your message to the people of India?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I look forward to being with the people of India. We’re going to have many millions and millions of people. It’s a long trip.
But I get along very well with the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Modi. He’s a friend of mine. I committed to this trip a long time ago, and I look forward to go — going.
We’re taking — as you know, the First Lady is coming. Some of you are coming. I hear it’s going to be a big event. Some people say the biggest event they’ve ever had in India. That’s what the Prime Minister told me. This will be the biggest event they’ve ever had. So it’s going to be very exciting. I’m going to be there one night. That’s not too much.
And then I’m stopping in South Carolina. We’re doing a big rally. And then I’ll be doing CPAC on Saturday. So there’s not a lot of time for rest, I will say that.
Q Will Bernie be the nominee?
THE PRESIDENT: I think so, unless they cheat him out of it. I think so. I think Bernie is looking more and more like he’ll be the nominee unless they cheat him out of it. A lot of people thought he was going to be the nominee last time, and that didn’t work out. I think they’re watching it very closely. I would imagine so.
Q Have you been updated on the coronavirus, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, we’re very much involved. We’re very — very cognizant of everything going on. We have it very much under control in this country.
Q Are you concerned for that virus expansion in Japan?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s a big — it’s a big situation going on throughout the world. And I can say, the United States, we’ve very much closed our doors in certain areas, in about certain areas, through certain areas. And we’ll see what happens. But we have the greatest doctors in the world. We have it very much under control.
We accepted a few people — a small number of people. They’re very well confined and they should be getting better fairly soon. Very interestingly, we’ve had no deaths. We have a — I mean, you know, we’ve had a great practice.
We had 12, at one point. And now they’ve gotten very much better. Many of them are fully recovered.
Q Do you think President Xi should be doing something different?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think President Xi is working very, very hard. I spoke to him. He’s working very hard. I think he’s doing a very good job. It’s a big problem. But President Xi loves his country. He’s working very hard to solve the problem and he will solve the problem. Okay?
Q Will you be (inaudible) Ambassador to Germany, Mr. Grenell, to continue?
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll be appointing a ambassador to Germany. I will say Ambassador Grenell has done a fantastic job. This is just a temporary job. We have five people that we’re looking at very seriously — expert people. And at a certain point in the not-too-distant future, we’ll be announcing who they are. Right?
Q Are you also appointing a new envoy to Kosovo and Serbia talks?
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q Are you also appointing a new envoy to Kosovo and Serbia talks?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the ambassador will be doing that. He did a great job. He’s very familiar with the people, and he will be — he has done a fantastic job on that. He’s going to continue to maintain that because he’s got such a good dialogue. Everybody said that was a deal, you know, that couldn’t be done. And we got it done. It’s a great thing for those two countries.
Q When the DNI is in place, are you ordering the IC to not investigate Russian interference for the 2020 election?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not involved in it. I’m not involved. I don’t have to, but I stay uninvolved. I don’t have to; I can be totally involved, as you know. But I very much stay uninvolved, and it’s all working out very well.
Q (Inaudible) Afghanistan, sir, do you trust the Taliban to keep their word?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, the Taliban has been fighting for decades. We’ve been over there 19 years. We’re like a law enforcement force. We think they want to make a deal; we want to make a deal. I think it’s going to work out. We’ll see.
We’re, right now, in a period that’s been holding up. You know, we have a certain period of nonviolence. It’s been holding up. It’s a day and a half. So we’ll see what happens.
But people want to make a deal, and I think the Taliban wants to make a deal too.
Q Would you sign the deal with them?
THE PRESIDENT: They’re tired of fighting.
Q Would you sign a deal with them? Would you have them here? Or where would you do that?
THE PRESIDENT: We haven’t made — we haven’t decided. I want to see how this period of a week works out. We can do that very quickly.
Q But you would put your name on it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Yeah. Assuming it works out over the next less than a week, I would put my name on it. Sure. It’s time to come home. And they want to stop. You know, they’ve been fighting a long time. They’re tough people, we’re tough people. But after 19 years, that’s a long time.
Q So what’s your latest thought on Huawei? Great Britain, the other week, signed a deal with them.
THE PRESIDENT: We have to be very careful. National security. Huawei. National security. We have to be very careful.
Thank you very much, everybody.
Q Mr. President, did you watch the fight?
THE PRESIDENT: I did. Great fight. By the way, that was a great fight. Did you watch it?
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: You liked it? That was a great fight. Two great fighters. It was, really, very exciting. Maybe we have to bring them both to the White House — I don’t know. Because that was really a good one. In fact, I think we’ll do that. Have a good time. Have a good time.
Roger Stone was sentenced to 40 months in prison by a partisan Obama appointee, Judge Amy Berman Jackson.
She alluded to the Russia collusion conspiracy when she said, “Stone was not prosecuted for standing up for the President; he was prosecuted for covering up for the President.”
Covering up how? A slip of memory is a cover up? Being a journalist and contacting WikiLeaks is a cover up? What exactly is the cover up? Whatever the Democrats say it is.
Nancy Pelosi and her crew may start the impeachment process anew if Trump pardons Roger Stone. That’s rank hypocrisy. What about Bill Clinton? Roger Stone is not a criminal and committed no crime, but Bill pardoned many despicable crooks. Does anyone remember the pardon he granted to his billionaire friend, Marc Rich? Do the Democrats remember how Marc Rich arranged a hefty sum to be deposited into the Clinton Foundation? Of course not.
Obama has populated courts with Democrat partisans who are more than willing to use our justice system to go after his enemies. President Trump committed no crime, but the Democrats wanted to impeach him anyway. Roger Stone committed no crime, but the Democrats want him locked up anyway. Meanwhile, real crooks such as Hillary Clinton remain unlocked up.
QUESTION: Wasn’t Bloomberg part of the manipulation of the US Treasury Auctions at Salomon Brothers?
JF
ANSWER: No, he sold out to Phibro and was not asked to stay on. In 1973, Bloomberg became a general partner at Salomon Brothers, where he headed equity trading and, later, systems development. In 1981, Salomon Brothers was bought by Phibro Corporation, and Bloomberg was laid off from the investment bank. Perhaps they saw his personality and did not see where he would fit into the bank with what many say was a position of self-importance. Bloomberg News was founded by Michael Bloomberg and Matthew Winkler in 1990 to deliver financial news reporting to Bloomberg Terminal subscribers. The agency was established in 1990 with a team of six people while Winkler was the editor-in-chief.
Michael Bloomberg had the audacity to deliver a speech at the Democratic Convention saying, “There are times when I disagree with Hillary Clinton. But let me tell you, whatever our disagreements may be, I’ve come here to say: We must put them aside for the good of our country. And we must unite around the candidate who can defeat a dangerous demagogue.”
He tried banning large sugary drinks which took effect on March 12, 2013. The pizza deliverymen were prohibited by LAW from delivering 2-liter bottles of soda, assuming one person would drink the whole thing. He never heard of a pizza party or a Superbowl party. Bloomberg is a very dangerous demagogue who accused Trump of being one. Perhaps it takes one to know one. The definition of a demagogue is a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than using rational argument. As far as a demagogue having the skills to manipulate the press, that’s not Trump, but that is Bloomberg who owns the press.
“a gifted demagogue with particular skill in manipulating the press”
For someone who came from the market-manipulating house of Solomon Brothers, his attempts on stop-and-frisk, changing the law so he could continually run New York City eliminating term-limits, and his attempt to outlaw 2-liter bottles of soda are just the definition of a demagogue. He will take the green agenda and implement it in a dictatorial fashion as he ran New York City.
However, Bloomberg’s actions with regard to “Occupy Wall Street” were so outrageous in how he protected his clients with terminals. He even drew outrage from the Washington Post (Bloomberg’s disgraceful eviction of Occupy Wall Street). Bloomberg defended Wall Street against the protest “Occupy Wall Street” and arrested people for exercising their First Amendment Rights. Again, Bloomberg acted like a dictator. The Washington Post wrote: “The behavior of the NYPD and the mayor’s office, in ordering this brazen action while blocking the press and the public from reporting on the eviction, is a disgraceful display of unnecessary force on a protest that for the most part has behaved lawfully and respectfully throughout its two-month existence.”
Kathy Kiely, the Washington news director at Bloomberg Politics, said she resigned from her post after growing uncomfortable with the way her outlet responded to news that Bloomberg is considering an independent White House bid. She said when she resigned in January 2016, “I think that Michael Bloomberg has built a terrific news organization but that he needs to liberate it to cover all the news, even the news about him.”
Actions speak louder than words. All of the actions of Bloomberg in New York City are a warning sign that this guy is a real threat to the American Constitution. He refuses to respect the right of freedom, speech, First Amendment, or due process of law. We will see Bloomberg News now become CNN in the financial world and distort all facts to support moving their leader to the White House.
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 