Last night Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired embattled Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. President Trump reacts:
Don’t be so blinded by the tripwire flares you fail to see the obvious. Within the statement from Attorney General Sessions hopefully you’ll note: “Including Under Oath”
The IG doesn’t place the internal investigative target “under oath”. An outside prosecutor who is assisting the IG does. Hence Attorney General Jeff Sessions is telling us what is going on – SEE HERE – Just like he did before:
… I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us; and we’re conducting that investigation. (read more)
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announces Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has been fired.
Inspector General Michael Horowitz recommended a review by the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility. The referral was based on IG Horowitz interviewing McCabe and identifying McCabe was lying about his instructions to FBI Communication Director Michael Kortan leaking to media on his behalf.
Mike Kortan, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok then proceeded to leak to Devlin Barrett (WSJ and WaPo), along with other journalists, with approvals from Andrew McCabe.
After IG Horowitz referred McCabe’s false statements to the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the OPR investigated and recommended to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and AAG Rod Rosenstein that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe should be fired. Moments ago Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced McCabe is fired:
Update: Andrew McCabe responds:
Former FBI Deputy Director Chris Swecker appeared for an interview with Harris Faulker to discuss the issues surrounding the IG and OPR recommendation that Asst. Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe needs to be fired.
Mr. Swecker notes his opinion the Inspector General report will likely be explosive: “I think you’re going to see some pure TNT come out of this IG report.” Video Below:
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 16, 2018
Additionally, and somewhat related, it was pointed out earlier today there is a very valid reason for AG Jeff Sessions not to appoint a Special Counsel. A review of the ideology –as noted within the Office of Special Counsel communications unit– shows a clear bias against the current administration. A bias that is NOT evident within the public communication prior to the Trump administration. The OSC has strongly expressed political views.
It is beyond likely the federal agency known as The Office of Special Counsel is every bit as politicized as the DOJ and FBI officials they would be tasked with investigating. Take a look for yourself. Therefore what AG Jeff Sessions previously explained as the process he has undertaken -bringing in an ‘outside of DC‘ prosecutor- begins to make more sense, albeit frustratingly methodical.
AG Jeff Sessions revealed March 8th, in an interview with Shannon Bream, that he previously appointed a DOJ official to investigate the issues delivered by Chairman Bob Goodlatte (House Judiciary), prior to receiving the request for a Special Counsel from Chairman Goodlatte and Trey Gowdy. WATCH:
Transcript @00:15 (emphasis mine) “Well, I have great respect for Mr. Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatte, and we are going to consider seriously their recommendations. I have appointed a person outside of Washington, many years in the Department of Justice to look at all the allegations that the House Judiciary Committee members sent to us; and we’re conducting that investigation.
Also I am well aware we have a responsibility to insure the integrity of the FISA process, we’re not afraid to look at that. The inspector general, some think that our inspector general is not very strong; but he has almost 500
employers, employees, most of which are lawyers and prosecutors; and they are looking at the FISA process. We must make sure that it’s done properly, and we’re going to do that. And I’ll consider their request.”
Well, there you have it. There is already an appointed person, likely a prosecutor, from “outside of Washington”, in place prior to the recent request for a Special Counsel by Goodlatte and Gowdy. That was exactly what an objective analysis of the events previously outlined – and we previously noted.
Attorney Jeff Sessions is noting the existence of an outside prosecutor who has been in place for quite a while, exactly as we thought.
William Alfred “Bill” Whittle (born April 7, 1959) is an American conservative blogger, political commentator, director, screenwriter, editor, pilot, and author.
It is going to take a heck of a lot of deep-weed education to cut through the economic gaslighting of the multinational corporations, Wall Street and their purchased institutional media. However, I give the White House team (Secretary Ross, Secretary Mnuchin, Ambassador Lighthizer and Adviser Peter Navarro) a measure of strong credit for beginning:
WHITE HOUSE: Measurement of trade flows is usually an uncontroversial topic relegated to macroeconomic classrooms and government technocrats. Recent debates about trade policy have brought the topic out of the shadows, and we hope to clarify how economists measure trade.
Every day there are international transactions for tens of thousands of different products. Physical goods, interchangeably called merchandise, are what usually comes to mind first. However, an increasing share of international trade is in services that are not physically transported between countries—think about financial insurance, licensing of trademarks, or services like consulting.
To make the world a bit more complicated, goods and services are increasingly bundled together, such as when a manufacturer sells a piece of machinery along with an international maintenance contract. The machinery is a good, but the maintenance agreement is a service.
From a macroeconomic perspective, economists typically use the balance of payments (BOP) basis. The BOP captures flows of what we would normally think of as imports and exports of goods, but also includes a series of adjustments. This process better aligns trade data with national income accounts such as GDP. The BOP has the added advantage of being applicable to service transactions as well.
The International Monetary Fund defines BOP as “a statistical statement that systematically summarizes, for a specific time period, the economic transactions of an economy with the rest of the world.” BOP transactions are valued using BPM6 methodology that emphasizes using balance sheet analysis to understand international economic developments and to improve comparability with other countries.
In order to construct the BOP, start with the customs value of imports and exports. A frequently used U.S. government data source reports monthly “customs basis” for transactions. There are different methods of customs valuation.
The transaction value method is the price actually paid by the buyer for the imported goods and includes all payments made as a condition of sale. But the transaction may or may not occur at the border—some international shipments change ownership when loaded, others when unloaded, some even at a specified point in transit.
Recognizing this array of contracts, alternative methods that evaluate imports based on identical or similar goods, deductive value, or computed value are used in various situations. Government statistics are specific about where the customs value is reported, with common specifications including “free on board” (f.o.b.), “free alongside ship” (f.a.s.), or “customs, insurance, and freight” (c.i.f) to designate how much of shipping costs are included in the transaction value.
Starting from the customs value, a series of adjustments are made to arrive at BOP. These adjustments are typically fairly small, but they can be significant in aggregate. The current U.S. adjustments are:
In 2017, the aggregate difference between customs goods imports and BOP goods imports was $19.0 billion on a customs basis of $2.34 trillion. For goods exports, the correction was similar—a difference of $4.0 billion on a customs basis of $1.55 trillion.
Subtracting imports from exports gives the trade balance. Trade balances can be calculated for goods, for services, for goods and services, for one country, for a group of countries, or for the whole world.
The most inclusive measure of trade covers both goods and services. Some economists worry about the measurement of trade in services, which may be subject to inconsistencies, and so prefer to focus on trade in goods alone. After all, goods are tangible things that are easier to count.
Others prefer to focus on goods alone because on average all goods-producing industries have higher wages than all service-producing industries; in Q3 of 2017 average total compensation per hour worked in goods-producing industries was about 20 percent higher at $39.97 while the same measure for service-producing industries was $32.21.
Although BOP accounting is similar across nations, each country can interpret BOP methods slightly differently, which leads to differences in reported values of surpluses and deficits. These details are typically spelled out in exhaustive detail in government documents that could be prescribed as a cure for insomnia. For an example, see the Bureau of Economic Analysis document here.
To illustrate some of the concepts presented in this post, consider U.S. bilateral trade balances with Canada. In 2017, the U.S. goods and services balance was a surplus of $2.77 billion. The goods alone balance on a BOP basis was a U.S. deficit of $23.16 billion, but on a customs basis it was a deficit of $17.58 billion. Note that the difference between the BOP goods and services balance and the BOP goods alone balance implies a trade surplus in services of $25.93 billion.
In contrast, Canadian statistics report a goods and services trade surplus with the United States of $26.76 billion, using the Canadian BOP methodology. The goods alone balance is $40.50 billion on a BOP basis.
One important difference in BOP methodology between the Canadian and U.S. approaches is the treatment of re-exported goods. USTR raised a related issue, on the role of re-exports in Census-based bilateral trade balances, in its 2018 Annual Report. (link)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue is warning President Trump not to take any trade action against China or he will unleash his purchased control agents within congress and financial media to destroy his presidency.
Donohue takes-in hundreds of millions in payments from multinational corporations who hold a vested interest in keeping the U.S. manufacturing economy subservient to China. The U.S. CoC then turns those corporate funds into lobbyist payments to DC politicians for legislative action that benefits their Chinese trade deals. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the #1 lobbyist in DC; there are trillions at stake.
Wall Street’s famous CONservative mouthpieces then take their cues from Donohue and decry any Trump trade policy that might impact their multinational benefactors. They hide behind catch phrases like “free trade”, or “free markets”. However, what they are really hiding is the truth, there is no free market – it is a controlled market. It’s a circle of trade and economic propaganda driven by the most well known guests that appear on Fox News. Ben Shapiro is one such example; there are hundreds more.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The head of the most influential U.S. business lobbying group warned the Trump administration that unilateral tariffs on Chinese goods could lead to a destructive trade war that will hurt American consumers and U.S. economic growth.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement on Thursday that such tariffs, associated with a probe of China’s intellectual property practices, would be “damaging taxes on American consumers.”
His comments came after White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that Trump would in coming weeks get options to address China’s “theft and forced transfer” of American intellectual property as part of the investigation under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974.
Reuters reported on Tuesday that Trump was considering tariffs on up to $60 billion worth of Chinese information technology, telecommunications and consumer products, along with U.S. investment restrictions for Chinese companies.
Donohue said the Trump administration was right to focus on the negative economic impact of China’s industrial policies and unfair trade practices, but said tariffs were the wrong approach to dealing with these.
“Tariffs of $30 billion a year would wipe out over a third of the savings American families received from the doubling of the standard deduction in tax reform,” Donohue said. “If the tariffs reach $60 billion, which has been rumored, the impact would be even more devastating.”
He urged the administration not to proceed with such a plan.
“Tariffs could lead to a destructive trade war with serious consequences for U.S. economic growth and job creation,” hurting consumers, businesses, farmers and ranchers.
In Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Donohue’s comments were correct, adding that recently more and more American intellectuals had made their rational voices heard. (read more)
We have consistently stated the #1 reason for opposition to President Trump is financial (ie. economic); “There are Trillions at stake“.
Everyone admits the past 40+ years of U.S. trade deals have resulted in the massive export of U.S. wealth via jobs and manufacturing gains within other nations. The financial beneficiaries of those prior trade positions were: Wall Street, multinational corporations and multinational banks.
The losers of all prior trade priorities was the U.S. middle-class. This point is inarguable, just look around. Stop the nonsense and quit listening to those who control the markets.
So ask yourself, friends and family this very important question:
If prior U.S. trade policies resulted in the export and redistribution of U.S. wealth… What happens when you reverse the process?
In the answer to that question you discover the opposition to U.S. President Trump.
For those who follow closely the strongest argument against the U.S. trade and economic policies of the past 30 years has been the outcome. We don’t need to guess what the pro’s and con’s of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce position is, we are living them. We don’t need to guess what the Wall Street economy delivers, we are living through them.
For the past 30 years the U.S. has lost jobs, wages have been depressed, and the middle-class has suffered through the implementation of economic trade policy that destroyed the U.S. manufacturing base. None of this is in question – the results stare us in the face – yet the Wall Street and multinational corporate club(s) [U.S. CoC chief among them] now demand a continuance of the same.
The economic and trade policies of the Trump administration are adverse to those interests. As we have shared for several years, candidate Trump, now President Trump is an existential threat to the multinational program.
All opposition to President Trump is about the underlying financial and economic policy of America-First. There are trillions at stake.
Those who have read here will note the media are generally oblivious to America-First economic policies; this includes the financial media.
As an example is the misleading information about how Steel/Aluminum tariffs would work. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stated clearly exactly how the Steel and Aluminum policy would be carried out; yet for the financial media they claim the action would be something entirely different. The level of intellectual dishonesty is off-the-charts.
The truth is: •Point #1 – the media don’t want to know any alternative; they are committed to retaining all prior policy. •Point #2 – there’s almost no-one within the professional economic punditry class who have ever given thought to what happens during the space between two fundamentally different economic policies as executed.
What happens in the space between taking the U.S. economy off the path of ‘service-driven-globalism’, and reasserting the economy back to a balanced ‘production-based national economy’? None of the key participants within the larger discussion have ever contemplated this dynamic.
CTH is one of the few, perhaps the only source, who has gamed-out MAGAnomics.
Allow me to re-emphasize:
All opposition to President Trump stems from the underlying financial and economic policy. All opposition is about money!
When you ask the “why” question five times you end up discovering the financial motive for all opposition. It doesn’t matter who the group is; the opposition is ultimately about money. There are trillions at stake.
When Main Street economic principles are applied Wall Street will initially lose. There’s no way for this not to happen. Most of Wall Street is built on the Multinational platform of economic globalism. Weaken the grip of the multinational corporations and financial interests on the U.S. economy and Wall Street will drop… this is not difficult to predict. This is also necessary.
U.S. stocks, centered around U.S. domestic companies, will go up. U.S. stocks, centered around multinational companies, will go down.
As Secretary Wilbur Ross, U.S.T.R. Robert Lighthizer and U.S. President Trump have previously affirmed, they are going to restore the U.S. manufacturing and production economy -OR- lose office trying.
The U.S. Steel and Aluminum tariffs are just one component of the larger economic issue. Bringing back U.S. production on those sectors is vital to the infrastructure of a manufacturing and production economy.
Additional steps will come from exits of NAFTA and renegotiated trade deals with ASEAN nations, China and Europe. We either have a stable broad-base economy, or we follow the former path and eventually lose the country.
On the specifics of inflation, we have discussed this issue at great length. As stated three years ago, inflation will happen within this cycle –especially in the space between the policy as constructed– however, it will not affect the larger economic restoration because the growth of U.S. wages will exceed the rising prices of durable goods…. AND simultaneously energy prices and high-consumable goods’ prices (food, fuel) will drop. [Exit NAFTA and U.S. food prices will drop 25% within a year]
In this transitional phase (the space between) wage growth will remain ahead of aggregate inflation. No former economic models have any way to measure or gauge this dynamic. We have never been between two entirely different sets of economic policy before. No amount of immediate fed monetary policy will effect what happens on Main Street in this “space between” the two economies.
For those following the increasingly curious case against General Mike Flynn, events take another unusual turn today. Congressional investigators have shared a set of unredacted text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and his cohort DOJ Attorney Lisa Page which reveal a personal friendship between Agent Strzok and Flynn’s initial presiding judge Rudolph Contreras.
On November 30th, 2017, Mike Flynn signed a guilty plea; ostensibly admitting lying to investigators. The plea was accepted by Judge Rudolph Contreras; who is also a FISA court judge. Six days later, December 7th, 2017, Judge Contreras “was recused” from the case without explanation.
The case was reassigned to DC District Judge Emmet Sullivan. The Contreras recusal always seemed sketchy. The key question was: if the conflict existed on December 7th, wouldn’t that same conflict have existed on November 30th, 2017?
Today questions about the conflict seem to have been answered. Text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page reveal the FBI agent and Judge Contreras were close personal friends. –SEE HERE–
Apparently DOJ lawyer Lisa Page was unaware that “Rudy” was a FISA court judge until July 25th, 2016, when she posited a question to her small group co-conspirator FBI agent Peter Strzok.
[Page is ‘outbox’, Strzok is ‘inbox’]
PAGE: Rudy is on the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]! Did you know that?” “Just appointed two months ago”
STRZOK: “I did. We talked about it before and after. I need to get together with him.
Contreras was appointed to the FISA Court court in May 2016. The FISA court approved a Title-1 Surveillance Warrant against Trump campaign aide Carter Page on October 26th, 2016, essentially placing the entire Trump campaign under FBI surveillance. That surveillance was then used against incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
The FBI agent questioning Michael Flynn in January 2017 was Peter Strzok. The judge presiding over the sketchy Flynn plea, an outcome of that interview, was Strzok’s friend Judge Rudolph “Rudy” Contreras. Therein lies the conflict.
However, that said, it must be emphasized that -despite the existing conflict- Contreras did not recuse himself from the initial Flynn pleading. Contreras allowed himself to sit on the case on November 30th, when the plea was made. It wasn’t until six days later, December 7th, 2017, that Contreras “was recused” from the Flynn case.
So what happened between November 30th and December 7th, 2017?
It became public knowledge that personal communication between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page was captured by IG investigators. That’s what happened.
Think about it.
Think about when everything began to break out from the headlines about the IG investigation, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr, and the corrupt small group activity within the FBI and DOJ team effort. It would be intellectually dishonest not to note all of the FBI conspiracy revelations happened immediately after Mike Flynn signed the guilty plea.
Within a matter of days between December 1st and December 7th, 2017, the reports of gross malfeasance within the DOJ and FBI went from a snowball to an avalanche. Peter Strzok (demoted), Lisa Page (removed), Bruce Ohr (demoted 2x), Nellie Ohr working for Fusion GPS; troubling communication with FBI chief-legal-counsel James Baker(demoted); evidence of FBI Deputy Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe’s involvement in a small group conspiracy (removed); FBI Communications head Michael “Mike” Kortan was outed (he quit); McCabe’s Chief of Staff James Rybicki was outed (he quit); etc. The list goes on.
Judge Rudolph Contreras, now exposed as a fellow ideological traveler and personal friend of the principal agent amid the scheme only raises more questions. Rudolph Contreras also has a strong ideological relationship with former Attorney General Eric Holder, President Obama’s notoriously political DOJ wingman:
2012 […] From 2006 until his appointment, Contreras was chief of the civil division in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. He’s the third person to hold that job before being appointed to the D.C. court, joining Chief Judge Royce Lamberth and Judge John Bates.
Contreras began his career at Jones Day law firm after earning his J.D. in 1991. Gregory Shumaker, partner-in-charge of Jones Day’s Washington office, spoke yesterday about first meeting Contreras when Shumaker was running the firm’s summer associate program. He said Contreras had a gift for connecting with people, a skill that would serve him well on the bench.
In 1994, Contreras was hired by Eric Holder Jr., then the U.S. attorney for D.C., to join that office. Mark Nagle, vice president and general counsel for Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. and Contreras’ predecessor as civil division chief, spoke about Contreras’ many victories, including his time leading the city’s Medicaid fraud unit. (read more)
There’s more than a general likelihood Judge Contreras was granting, FBI investigative and DOJ prosecutorial, leeway for the ideological endeavors of the DOJ/FBI “small group” given his personal and professional relationships.
But the entire fact-pattern still doesn’t answer a nagging 30,000 foot question: Did someone intercede and recuse Judge Rudolph Contreras from the Flynn case? -OR- Did Judge Contreras recuse himself *after* he realized his relationship with Strzok was exposed? The former seems likely, the latter less so.
Judge Collyer was the FISA judge who wrote the eye-opening 99-page opinion of the FISA abuses reported by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, DOJ National Security Division head John P Carlin, and FBI Director James Comey.
Presiding FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer might have been the same Presiding FISA Judge who -holding concerns over ongoing FISC revelations in late 2017- recused Rudolph Contreras from further contact with the Flynn case. The other option for a forced recusal would the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts.
Published on Mar 15, 2018
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appears on Fox News at Night to discuss the ending of the Trump-Russian investigation and the continuance of the ongoing FISA abuse and FBI/DOJ corruption investigations.
Part of the interview surrounds the new request by Senator Chuck Grassley for a second special counsel. As Nunes notes the Grassley request is almost identical to his own.