White House chief-of-staff Mick Mulvaney appears on Fox News Sunday with swamp gatekeeper Chris Wallace. As customary Wallace uses the Share Blue talking points, one example: Notice how Wallace says “a statement from a senior justice department official”, then puts up an “anonymous” quote. Official statements from the DOJ are not anonymous.
President Trump has cancelled plans to host the G7 at Trump Doral in Miami Florida.
The background context has already been outlined –SEE HERE– so we won’t repeat. Instead, we look at today’s defensive narrative engineering from the New York Times with a similar perspective, but a different set of reminders.
Content and distribution tells us this information is from the DOJ and FBI faction of the “Small Group“. Not accidentally, and VERY importantly, this is the same faction under the microscope of Inspector General Michael Horowitz and his pending IG report. Additionally, and again very importantly, the principles within the IG report have already had an opportunity to review the part of the upcoming report that highlights their conduct.
So this New York Times reporting, from conversations with the DOJ and FBI small group participants, is coming out in advance of the IG report and with their review in mind.
Here’s the article, emphasis mine:
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation have asked witnesses pointed questions about any anti-Trump bias among former F.B.I. officials who are frequent targets of President Trump and about the earliest steps they took in the Russia inquiry, according to former officials and other people familiar with the review.
[Note “prosecutors” is plural; more than one. “prosecutors” also implies a shift from investigative review, to a likelihood of criminal conduct. The media presentation of John Durham has gone from a single U.S. Attorney with a mandate from his boss, to a group of people, ‘prosecutors’, working with the U.S. Attorney.]
The prosecutors, led by John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, have interviewed about two dozen former and current F.B.I. officials, the people said. Two former senior F.B.I. agents are assisting with the review, the people said.
[Two dozen former and current FBI officials questioned, but none of the individual within the small group have been questioned yet. In addition to the prosecutors, Durham also has two FBI agents assisting. Later in the article we discover a strong likelihood that one of those FBI agents is the leak source for the New York Times.]
The number of interviews shows that Mr. Durham’s review is further along than previously known. It has served as a political flash point since Attorney General William P. Barr revealed in the spring that he planned to scrutinize the beginnings of the Russia investigation, which Mr. Trump and his allies have attacked without evidence as a plot by law enforcement and intelligence officials to prevent him from winning the 2016 election.
[…] Mr. Durham has yet to interview all the F.B.I. officials who played key roles in opening the Russian investigation in the summer of 2016, the people familiar with the review said. He has not spoken with Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence official who opened the inquiry; the former director James B. Comey or his deputy, Andrew G. McCabe; or James A. Baker, then the bureau’s general counsel.
[So Mr. Durham has not questioned the “small group” participants. Ultimately this appears to be the reason for the nervousness now originating a defensive posture.]
Those omissions suggest Mr. Durham may be waiting until he has gathered all the facts before he asks to question the main decision makers in the Russia inquiry.
[Or it could be that those “main decision makers” are targets of the investigation.]
The president granted Mr. Barr sweeping powers for the review, though he did not open it as a criminal investigation. That means he gave Mr. Durham the power only to read materials the government had already gathered and to request voluntary interviews from witnesses, not to subpoenawitnesses or documents. It is not clear whether the status of the review has changed.
[Why would Mr. Barr need to “subpoena” pre-existing documents he has been granted full presidential authority to review? Methinks the New York Times engineer is conflating the power of a special counsel (prior investigation) with the power of a U.S. Attorney General who was granted full access to any/all classified information by an executive order from the President of the United States.]
Mr. Durham’s investigators appeared focused at one point on Mr. Strzok, said one former official who was interviewed. Mr. Strzok opened the Russia inquiry in late July 2016 after receiving information from the Australian government that the Russians had offered damaging information on Hillary Clinton to a Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Durham’s team has asked about the events surrounding the Australian tip, some of the people familiar with the review said.
Mr. Durham’s team, including Nora R. Dannehy, a veteran prosecutor, has questioned witnesses about why Mr. Strzok both drafted and signed the paperwork opening the investigation, suggesting that was unusual for one person to take both steps. Mr. Strzok began the inquiry after consulting with F.B.I. leadership, former officials familiar with the episode said.
[“why” did FBI leadership allow Strzok to create, draft and open the investigation? LOL, that’s actually a big tell. Apparently Comey and McCabe were smart enough to keep their signatures off a political investigation. It’s called plausible deniability. Same purpose for James Comey keeping copious notes (diary) in his home safe.
Mr. Durham has also questioned why Mr. Strzok opened the case on a weekend, again suggesting that the step might have been out of the ordinary. Former officials said that Mr. McCabe had directed Mr. Strzok to travel immediately to London to interview the twoAustralian diplomats who had learned about the Russians’ offer to help the Trump campaign and that he was trying to ensure he took the necessary administrative steps first.
[“Two” = Alexander Downer and Erika Thompson. May 10, 2016, Papadopoulos meets Ambassador Downer at the Kensington Wine Rooms in London, England. MEDIA CLAIM: “Downer met with George Papadopoulos, where Papadopoulos — having been introduced through two intermediaries, Christian Cantor and Erika Thompson — mentioned that Russians had material on Hillary Clinton.” Both Papadopoulos and Downer refute their May 10th meeting discussed Clinton emails. Papadopoulos notes that Ambassador Downer is recording their conversation. {Go Deep}]
It is not clear how many people Mr. Durham’s team has interviewed outside of the F.B.I. His investigators have questioned officials in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence but apparently have yet to interview C.I.A. personnel, people familiar with the review said.
[So the leakers “people familiar” to the NYT are limited to knowledge inside the DOJ and FBI operational entities; just as we suspected.
[…] Many of the questions from Mr. Durham’s team overlapped with ones that the Justice Department inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has posed in his own look into aspects of the Russia inquiry, according to the people.
Mr. Horowitz’s report, which is most likely to be made public in the coming weeks, is expected to criticize law enforcement officials’ actions in the Russia investigation. Mr. Horowitz’s findings could provide insights into why Mr. Barr thought that the Russia investigation needed to be examined.
[Well, there’s the motive for the current narrative engineering. Horowitz’s report is coming out; small group participants will be criticized; and the justification for Barr and Durham to look at their behavior will be bolstered by IG Horowitz.]
In his review, Mr. Durham has asked witnesses about the role of Christopher Steele, a former intelligence official from Britain who was hired to research Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia by a firm that was in turn financed by Democrats. Law enforcement officials used some of the information Mr. Steele compiled into a now-infamous dossier to obtain a secret wiretap on a Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, whom they suspected was an agent of Russia.
[Interesting the NYT doesn’t write that Mr. Durham has interviewed Christopher Steele about his work on the dossier and his contact with the small group (he has). One would think that would be an important notation in a paragraph about Mr. Steele, no?]
[…] Mr. Durham’s investigators asked why F.B.I. officials would use unsubstantiated or incorrect information in their application for a court order allowing the wiretap and seemed skeptical about why agents relied on Mr. Steele’s dossier.
The inspector general has also raised concerns that the F.B.I. inflated Mr. Steele’s value as an informant in order to obtain the wiretap on Mr. Page. Mr. Durham’s investigators have done the same, according to the people familiar with his review.
[Well, well, well, I answered by own question. The NYT doesn’t want readers to know John Durham interviewed Steele, because the NYT is admitting the Steele information was “unsubstantiated”, “incorrect”, and the FBI “inflated” Mr. Steele to gain a political weapon. Hmmm… methinks those exact words will be in the IG report; I digress.]
Mr. Horowitz has asked witnesses about an assessment of Mr. Steele that MI6, the British spy agency, provided to the F.B.I. after bureau officials received his dossier on Mr. Trump in September 2016. MI6 officials said Mr. Steele, a Russia expert, was honest and persistent but sometimes showed questionable judgment in pursuing targets that others viewed as a waste of time, two people familiar with the assessment said.
[That preceeding paragraph is just loaded with juicy stuff. The NYT is sharing that MI6 told the FBI Steele was a sketchy fellow. The NYT is positioning the dossier to the FBI in September 2016, but we know the dossier material was in Brennan’s briefing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in August 2016…. So the NYT is positioning the FBI as a victim of bad intel from the dossier that was initiated by John Brennan. Very interesting. Additionally, “two people familiar with the MI6 assessment” is confluent with two people who have read the IG report which will outline the MI6 assessment. See how that works?]
One former official said that in his interview with Mr. Durham’s team, he pushed back on the notion that law enforcement and intelligence officials had plotted to thwart Mr. Trump’s candidacy..
[…] The former official said he was reassured by the presence of John C. Eckenrode, one of the former senior F.B.I. agents assisting Mr. Durham. Like Mr. Durham, who investigated C.I.A. torture of detainees overseas, Mr. Eckenrode is also familiar with high-stakes political inquiries.
He is probably best known for working with Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the former United States attorney who in 2003 was appointed to investigate the leak of the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, to a journalist.
“Jack is as straight a shooter as you can get in the F.B.I.,” Asha Rangappa, a former F.B.I. agent, said of Mr. Eckenrode, a friend. “It’s the first reassuring thing I’ve heard about this review.” (Read Full Article)
Oh good grief. Asha “Comey is my Homey” Rangappa, likes one of Durham’s FBI investigators…. who also worked with corruptocrat Patrick Fitzgerald, one of James Comey’s corrupt friends who is now Comey’s corrupt lawyer.
Given that some of these NYT leaks come from inside Durham’s team, it’s likely John Eckenrode is the source.
Asha “Comey is my Homey” Rangappa (seated)
The key takeaway from this NYT article is the beginning of the public defense narrative for the DOJ/FBI small group. They are starting to position themselves as victims of false information delivered to them by the CIA and Intelligence Community.
Apparently, this is the big picture defense they will use when the IG report drops.
Within today’s reporting from the New York Times and NBC, a key aspect is how CIA analysts are worried about explaining and/or justifying the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). As such it is well worth remembering information about John Durham’s originating focus from June, 2019:
Against the backdrop of the DOJ admitting FBI investigators never had access to the DNC servers to verify a Russian hack; and with new information about the FBI receiving partial and redacted analysis from Crowdstrike; the review by U.S. Attorney John Durham toward the downstream assessment/claims of the CIA takes on new meaning.
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique “insurance policy” interest in how the report could be utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the “high confidence” claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(JUNE 2019 – New York Times) […] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.
During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released a declassified assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that “aspired to help” Mr. Trump’s electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton’s. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (read more)
Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it’s likely Durham will cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.
Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?
The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA.
If the ICA is a false political document…. then guess what?
Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]
Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.
Scope: This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.
Well produced video highlighting the connective sentiment behind Brexit and President Trump.
The activity of the “small group” of coup plotters consists of three generalized subsidiary agencies: (1) DOJ/FBI, (2) CIA/ODNI, and (3) The State Department.
Within each “small group faction” a years-long review of their narrative constructs shows the groups have specific and unique media outlets for their offensive (’16, ’17) and defensive (’18, ’19) propaganda efforts.
•The DOJ/FBI faction of the “small group” leaks to narrative engineers at the New York Times and NBC. •The CIA/ODNI faction utilize the Washington Post and ABC; and •the State Dept. faction use CNN and CBS. Each faction uses the same reporters & pundits for their distribution. This pattern, albeit generalized, has been consistent for several years.
The originating media entity -utilizing the leaks, opinions and agenda of the faction most concerned- starts the process. The secondary media groups come in for support – reporting on the reporting; and then reporting on the reporting of the reporting… and so on. This process provides a concentric distribution effort to bolster the originating premise.
Similar to the Journ-o-list effort of Ezra Klein, all of the ideologically aligned reporters share information for the larger process of defending the prior activity and advancing a unified narrative. [Reference Buzzfeed’s Ali Watkins sharing leaks from SSCI Security Director James Wolfe to her peers at WaPo and New York Times while she had sex with the source to keep the information pipeline open.]
It is important to remember this concerted process whenever we are reviewing media articles concerning the matters of interest to each of the “small group” factions.
In essence, the propagandists within the media are the same; and the sources for the positions reflected in the articles are the same. Wash, rinse and repeat depending on the identified risk.
So today we see NBC and the New York Times going “out front” on behalf of their interests. Referencing the faction each outlet represents we see the *reporting* is to defend the interests of the DOJ and FBI.
The first “small group” report is from NBC. Toplines:
Here’s the key NBC paragraphs, emphasis mine:
(Via NBC) A review launched by Attorney General William Barr into the origins of the Russia investigation has expanded significantly amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis, multiple current and former officials told NBC News.
[The “multiple current and former officials” are members of the small group. Based on the outlet and the material, these members are DOJ and FBI officials].
The prosecutor conducting the review, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, has expressed his intent to interview a number of current and former intelligence officials involved in examining Russia’s effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former director of national intelligence James Clapper, Brennan told NBC News.
Durham has also requested to talk to CIA analysts involved in the intelligence assessment of Russia’s activities, prompting some of them to hire lawyers, according to three former CIA officialsfamiliar with the matter. And there is tension between the CIA and the Justice Department over what classified documents Durham can examine, two people familiar with the matter said.
[Here we see Durham doing what we suspected five months ago. {Go Deep} Durham is looking at who put together the December 2016, Joint Analysis Report (JAR); and the January 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA); essentially the originating documents that promoted the vast Russian conspiracy and set the cornerstone for a special counsel investigation therein.]
With Barr’s approval, Durham has expanded his staff and the timeframe under scrutiny, according to a law enforcement official directly familiar with the matter.
[This is common sense. If the ICA is a false political document, then guess what? Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big fraud (it is). Then the construct of the special counsel probe (remember the “originating” construct), was false. (it was)]
[…] If Durham is conducting a criminal investigation, it’s not clear what allegations of wrongdoing are being examined. The Justice Department has not detailed any, and a spokeswoman declined to comment for this story.
“I don’t know what the legal basis for this is,” Brennan said, calling the probe “bizarre.”
[…] Justice Department officials have said that Durham has found something significant, and that critics should be careful.
[…] Skeptics who have been trying to track Durham’s movementssay he has yet to interview key figures, including former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, former FBI agent Peter Stzrok and former FBI general counsel James Baker.
[“skeptics”? Who are they? …and why are they “trying to track Durham’s movements”?]
“Nobody who knows anything has been interviewed,” said a person in touch with those former officials.
[So the group is talking to themselves and using a third party to push their collective discussion into the media. Important to note.]
[…] A Western intelligence official familiar with what Durham has been asking of foreign officials says his inquiries track closely with the questions raised about the Russia investigation in right-wing media.
[So some entity in the intelligence community, likely outside the U.S. , is in contact with the small group and keeping them apprised of what Durham is doing? Interesting. Pay attention to what NBC is admitting here… Corrupt officials, co-conspirators, within the intelligence apparatus are monitoring John Durham; relaying information back to their allies; who then talk among themselves and coordinate media leaks based on the information they are able to extract from the tracking. That’s a big admission.]
[…] The Senate intelligence committee examined the allegations about Downer, Mifsud and Halper, as part of its bipartisan investigation into the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia was responsible for attacking the 2016 election, and found nothing to substantiate any wrongdoing, a committee aide said. (read full article)
[Again, notice how the small group is utilizing the SSCI, and it is a committee aide within the SSCI that is leaking to NBC. We already know the SSCI was completely compromised by the effort to remove President Trump from office. {Go Deep} Part of that SSCI effort led to the discovery of SSCI Security Director James Wolfe leaking the FISA application to the media. The SSCI was/is part of the coup/impeachment effort.]
Next up we look at the New York Times….
Trying to find the details within the U.K-EU Brexit deal is more difficult than finding evidence of a Yeti. The negotiating team secrecy is inherent to the way the elites within the European systems work. Essentially the “betters” rule the proles by hiding the details and relying upon the electorate to “trust” the outlined framework of their elected superiors.
Hiding details is a feature within the European system and the way the government looks at their role.
That said, tomorrow British members of parliament will begin debating the deal for the UK to exit the EU. The deal was modified by Boris Johnson. A backgrounder:
.
Farage is concerned, rightly, about how the framework of the EU customs union is constructed to influence the UK after Brexit. From what can be determined there’s a triggering mechanism where the UK and EU begin a lengthy process to construct a UK trade agreement with the EU after Brexit takes place.
Within that post-Brexit automatic trade-framework is where the European Union is seeking to retain their influence over the United Kingdom. However, it is not accurate to overlay EU influence too heavily, and here’s why….
Within the current framework there’s a customs union design similar to a Venn diagram, that consists of Northern Ireland remaining attached to EU tariff rules, and yet the UK is not subject to the same parameters. So there’s three different sets of trade rules in place.
One set between the EU and Northern Ireland; one set between Northern Ireland and the UK; and one set between the EU and the UK. All of this is designed to stop the UK from having independent trade wealth that is beyond the reach of the EU to control.
It’s complicated.
However, here’s the aspect you won’t find discussed.
Within the agreement as it appears the EU can, likely would, punish the UK for having more favorable trade agreements with other nations. Meaning if the UK gives better deals to others than it does the EU, the EU will increase tariffs against the UK intended to punish the UK by restricting access to the EU market for UK products. But that’s the limit of what the EU will be able to do….
Meaning, the EU cannot stop the UK from entering a trade deal with North America (think USMCA). And there’s every visible likelihood President Trump is constructing a U.S.-U.K trade agreement with that in mind…. Meaning the U.K. will have preferential access to North America, and the USMCA countries (Mexico, U.S. and Canada) will in turn have preferential treatment in trade with the U.K.
This is important. The EU will not be able to influence the U.S-U.K. trade agreement beyond imposing tariffs on Britain as punishment. This is where the importance of Donald Trump comes in…. Trump can, I would say: likely will, give preferential treatment to exports from the U.K., so long as PM Boris Johnson is reciprocal toward the U.S.
Simultaneously, President Trump can hit the EU much harder than the EU can hit Great Britain. If, say, the EU hits the UK with a 25% tariff as punishment for a better trade deal with the U.S. on any individual segment, Trump can hit the EU with a 25% tariff back on the EU.
The EU needs access to the $20 Trillion U.S. market much more than the EU needs access to the newly freed U.K. market. Brexiteers should remember this. President Trump and PM Johnson can work together to leverage this trade situation to both of their benefits. The EU will want to keep selling their stuff into the U.K. (less important); but the EU *has to* keep selling their stuff into the U.S. (very important) in order to survive.
Trump and Johnson can work on a U.S-U.K. trade superhighway. Our research already sees this construct in the discussions. Simultaneously, Trump can pummel the EU with tariffs. [Keep in mind the U.S. just won a WTO ruling for $7.5 billion a year in countervailing duties the EU cannot legally try and counteract.]
Combine the $7.5 billion WTO ruling with the potential for President Trump to hammer additional duties against the EU for adverse trade action within the Brexit customs authority, and what you see is an EU that can threaten action, but has limited recourse (just like China).
President Trump is itching to trigger more tariffs against the EU and looking for any economic excuse to do so. Brexit provides just that excuse.
This is why, despite the flaws inherent within the UK-EU Brexit agreement, it would be in the best interests of the U.K. to vote in support of the current deal and get out.
Once out, President Trump can then provide trade incentives for EU products that come from the U.K. that do not come from the EU itself. No U.S. tariffs on Great Britain, while Trump puts heavy U.S. tariffs on the EU.
The result of this process would push EU manufacturers and suppliers into the U.K. as a trade hub for access to North America, specifically the United States. Simultaneously, EU companies wanting to avoid the U.S. tariffs against the EU could distribute their products through operations within the U.K.
As described this trade network provides PM Boris Johnson with the ability to pick and choose the EU entities that he would permit to operate in the U.K. In essence, this provides Prime Minister Boris Johnson with leverage against the EU for “other issues” of importance.
It’s all about the economics.
Without money to finance their ideology, everything stops.
All of the above stated, this is another reason why Nancy Pelosi and the ideological leftists are trying to stall the USMCA. The North American Trade agreement is the trade fulcrum for a massive global economic reset.
The corporate multinational profit schemes to use China/Asia, and the political ideology behind the socialists/leftists that align with the EU (ie. “share the wealth”), are both weakened by a North American trade alliance, USMCA, that relocates the best return on international investment.
At the center of this realignment is “America First“.
A big FUBAR happened in Culiacan Mexico yesterday as Mexican police and narcotics officers captured Ovidio Guzman, aka “Chapito”, the heir of drug kingpin El Chappo and current head of the Sinaloa cartel.
We watched via social media yesterday as a war broke out in Culiacan between the police/military and the cartel. After authorities captured Chapito, hundreds of Sinaloa cartel members came down from the mountains and cut off the city. The cartel began executing and capturing anyone who was assisting the arrest. The city shut down.
To save themselves, the surrounded Mexican officials released Chapito back to the cartels and now the world has more evidence that Mexican President Lopez-Obrador has no control over the peace and security of Mexico. The cartels are in charge.
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexican officials on Friday admitted they had bungled the arrest of kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s son, who they let go during shootouts with drug gangs in the streets of a major city, but the president insisted his security strategy was working.
Cartel gunmen surrounded around 35 police and national guards in the northwestern city of Culiacan on Thursday and made them free Ovidio Guzman, one of the jailed drug lord’s dozen or so children, after his brief detention set off widespread gun battles and a jailbreak that stunned the country.
The chaos in Culiacan, a bastion of Guzman’s Sinaloa Cartel, turned up pressure on President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who took office in December promising to pacify a country weary of more than a decade of gang violence and murders.
Lopez Obrador came under heavy criticism on social media and from security experts, who said that authorities risked encouraging copycat actions by caving in to the gang, and that the retreat from a major city created the impression that the cartel, not the state, was in control. (read more)
TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2Sounds like the cartel is going after the families of the cops/police, in an effort to get Chapito back. Thread
https://twitter.com/oscarbalmen/status/1184967274572201984 …
Oscar Balmen@oscarbalmen¿Qué está pasando en #Culiacán?
Hasta las 5 de la tarde (hora culichi) no hay confirmación oficial, pero el rumor fuerte es que @SEDENAmx mató a Iván Archivaldo Guzmán Salazar y detuvo a Ovidio Guzmán López en un operativo. Ambos son hijos del Chapo Guzmán.
TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2
Holy Cats!! sound on….. https://twitter.com/PerezDiazMX/status/1184946085468332032 …
Juan Pablo Pérez Díaz@PerezDiazMXAsí las cosas al norte de #Culiacán. Momentos exactos de la balacera captados por el compañero reportero Policiaco, Ernesto Martínez.
El Estatal@ElEstatalMXTras la supuesta captura del Hijo de el Chapo, Ivan Archivaldo, la ciudad de #Culiacan se encuentra situada. Familias enteras huyen despavoridas resguardándose de las balas.
TheLastRefuge@TheLastRefuge2Looks like the cartel won big on this one. Mexico let Chapito go… But don’t think it’s over, it ain’t.
The Cartels will now kill every family member of every Mexican police, narcotics, military and national guard unit that participated in the arrest.
Many will die. Watch. https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1185318386793943040 …
Reuters Top News✔@Reuters
Mexican president says they had to release the son of drug kingpin Joaquin ‘El Chapo’ Guzman after an intense battle between security forces and cartel gunmen as ‘the situation became very difficult’ and ‘many people were at risk’ https://reut.rs/2qm71ly
Perhaps the only institution more corrupt than the Obama intelligence apparatus, writ large, was/is the Clinton constructed U.S. State Department. Foggy Bottom is appropriately named as the septic tank for the Administrative State.
Former President Barack Obama carved out a segment of the financial indulgence, and thereafter purchased the acquiescence of Team Clinton, when he handed Dame Hillary the keys to the State Dept as an outcome of the 2008 election. Barry from Chicago and his fellow travelers would weaponize the domestic apparatus, and Hillary could graft the international effort; thus, the compact was sealed…
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton are photographed with Aung San Suu Kyi and her staff at her residence in Rangoon, Burma, Nov. 19, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The institutional bile, filth and corruption embedded within the the U.S. State Dept. is an outcome of an organization whose sole purpose is to generate credentials for leftists on their curriculum vitae; curry income for pontificating academics who have done absolutely nothing of inherent value in life; and advance ruling class ideologies through control of foreign policy. The Birkenstock peaceniks, promote the global elitist ruse, demand accolades from the subservient proles, and use Hollywood as their PR division.
Therefore it comes as no surprise a four-year internal self-investigation of their own complicity results in little more than a carefully worded 9-page letter admitting, essentially, mistakes were made by allowing Secretary Clinton to construct a parallel communication network to avoid public scrutiny of her graft and scheme operations.
WASHINGTON – State Department identified nearly 600 security violations in its now-completed review of email records of dozens of former agency officials and aides to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The investigation, which covered the 33,000 emails Clinton provided for review, found 91 “valid violations” attributable to 38 individuals, some of whom may face disciplinary action. Another 497 violations could not be tied to any specific person.
A nine-page unclassified report was sent to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is leading the congressional oversight of the security review, in a letter from Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Mary Elizabeth Taylor dated Oct. 16. (read more)
.
Despite the abject nuttery, there is good news here. Former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing current Democrat Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a secret Russian agent:
“[Tulsi Gabbard is] the favorite of the Russians, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. She’s a Russian asset! I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate.” (link)
The insufferable Mrs. Clinton re-initiated her vast Russian conspiracy theory during an interview with former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. Yes, THAT David Plouffe.
However, Clinton nuttery aside, this level of political quackery -as expressed- is not all bad news. Clinton’s tendency to make herself stupid and small is a strong indicator: (A) she’s not stable; (B) she’s not viable; and (C) she knows she could never re-enter the race.
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!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
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
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 