Tag Archives: Title I FISA warrant
Corruption & the Rich
Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption
Re-Posted Oct 30, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION:
Dear Martin,
With all due respect I think you are not being fair on the question of earning or not a lot of money. First of all there LOTS of people that earn a lot of money with corruption or just because they were lucky or through family links have managed to get in privileged positions.
Secondly, I have a PhD in maths and decided to dedicate my life to both teaching and doing research in academia and 20 years on I am earning less and got nowhere in the academia career from the point where I started: the bottom.
And speaking of truck drivers, they earn more than young physicians and in neighbouring Spain they earn a lot more than I do.
Greetings from Portugal (the miracle of Europe, so they say in Brussels!)
MM
ANSWER: I fully appreciate your perspective. Where you are perhaps too focused is on lumping all people with any wealth into a narrow category. That is like saying everyone who does not have wealth is on welfare. The categories of wealth you have mentioned are corruption and links to family. This typically involves politics. There are people who inherit money from their parents or have inherited a business. Typically, they say the first generation makes it, the second generation diminishes it, and third generation wipes it out.
This is why I believe we need to end career politicians and implement one-term limits to help reduce corruption. But additionally, there should be no income tax and that will go a great way to end bribing politicians for special treatment. At worst, there should be a flat tax which would also tend to end that. The rest of the corruption is centered on lobbying for regulation exceptions.
What you are experiencing is in truth taking place to all wage earners. The rise in taxation has been dramatic postwar and that has reduced the standard of living. On top of that, there is systemic inflation. Whatever they took from you for a pension 20 years ago is by no means the same today. This is how life insurance companies make their money. They sell you a policy today that is one million euros. But in 20 years, one million euros will buy a fraction of what it does today. I bought a Porsche in 1970 for $10,000. You cannot even buy a used one for that today. The purchasing power of the money routinely declines. People from Venezuela are being paid their pensions. They cannot even buy a cup of coffee today. This is the systemic corruption propagated by government overtime even if they never intended it to work out that way.
Taxpayers Have Been Paying for Sexual Harassment by Politicians
Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption
Re-Posted Oct 30, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
Believe it or not, those who make the laws have always excluded themselves from them in most cases such as insider trading in stocks to settlements for their personal conduct like sexual harassment.
At last, the House finally passed a bill that requires members of Congress to pay out of their own pockets for any sexual harassment settlements. Can you image that taxpayers have been paying for all the sexual abuse cases of politicians?
Vanity Fair published an essay by Monica Lewinsky in which she wrote that the question of whether her relationship with Clinton was consensual was “very, very complicated.”
“I now see how problematic it was that the two of us even got to a place where there was a question of consent,” she wrote. “The road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege.”
In the Harvey Weinstein era, there is no question that you cannot have a sexual encounter with someone whose job is on the line. Bill Clinton’s pursuit of Lewinsky was unquestionably sexual misconduct. Paula Jones had said that Clinton sexually harassed her when she also worked for the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission back in 1991. Then there was Kathleen Willey who alleged that Clinton assaulted her when she was a volunteer at the White House in 1993. The third allegation of a person involving employment with Clinton was Juanita Broaddrick who alleged that Clinton raped her in a hotel room when she was volunteering for his Arkansas gubernatorial campaign back in 1978.
True, Clinton has denied all these allegations. However, the pattern of involving some work connection is clear and this is the conduct that is deeply concerning if taxpayers have to pay the bills. If there is no personal responsibility at risk, why not harass people sexually? That is the problem when the government pays for their misconduct, which would not be the case in the private sector. They go to jail (i.e. Weinstein potentially & then there is Epstein) and they pay their own bills.
Unfortunately Fox News Continues Deliberate Misinformation…
October 30, 2019
Moments ago Fox News host Shannon Bream promoted a segment on her news program outlining the pending House ‘Impeachment Inquiry’ resolution scheduled for tomorrow.
During the broadcast segment Bream stated, falsely, that President Trump would be granted the following participatory measures as an outcome of the resolution:
(Screengrab Fox News 11:03pm EST)
This is deliberately false information. The resolution does not convey any of the outlined measures to the Executive Branch. Rather, as previously outlined, the resolution provides the possibility for executive branch participation -AFTER- the intelligence committee sends their report to the Judiciary Committee at some unknown future date.
You can read the resolution and truthful explanation here.
Seditious Conspiracy / Sketchy Witness – Schiff Blocks Questioning of NSC Staffer Alexander Vindman to Protect Him from Legal Exposure…
October 29, 2019
Holy smokes, this Alexander Vindman witness is very sketchy. Generally suspected of being “whistle-blower #2”, records show Vindman had numerous contacts with registered foreign agents, while a member of the National Security Council. [FARA link – pg 4]
Additionally, it is highly likely Vindman leaked the content of presidential phone calls illegally while he was a member of the National Security Council; which explains why Adam Schiff would not permit Vindman to answer questions about who he talked to.
.
The New York Times is reporting that sketchy Vindman attempted to manipulate the CIA transcripts of President Trump’s call with Ukraine President Zelenskyy to meet Vindman’s ideological interpretations. [Vindman had a hidden agenda “spying” while inside the NSC]
In an effort to bolster his very sketchy credibility; and likely in an effort to avoid the appearance of sedition; Schiff’s Lawfare staff recommended Vindman wear his military uniform to the hearing today, though Vindman never wore the uniform for his NSC job.

[Link to FARA document – Page 4]
(Open Secrets) – sA little known U.S.-based attorney quietly poured six figures into foreign influence operations for President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, hoping to be rewarded with a job in his administration, foreign agent records identified by OpenSecrets show.
The new Foreign Agent Registration Act records reveal previously unreported meetings with Trump administration officials and details of a six-figure lobbying campaign promoting Zelensky’s interests in the U.S. during the leadup to his election and now-infamous phone call with President Donald Trump.
[…] Notable among the Trump officials contacted was Alexander Vindman, who oversees European affairs at the National Security Council. Vindman was one of five Trump administration officials chosen for a delegation to Zelensky’s inauguration featured in the whistleblower complaint alongside Kurt Volker, the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine who resigned after fallout from the whistleblower’s allegations. (read more)
President Volodymyr Zelensky and First Lady Olena Zelenska with U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and the U.S. delegation attending the inauguration, which included U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon D. Sondland, the National Security Council’s Director for European Affairs Alexander Vindman and Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Joseph Pennington. (Source)
Flynn Update – Judge Grants Complaining DOJ Lawyers an Opportunity to File a Reply…
October 29, 2019
Yesterday, after an extensive defense motion, Judge Emmet Sullivan canceled the November 7th hearing in the Flynn case to resolve defense issues outlining how the DOJ was willfully not producing Brady evidence that would show Flynn’s innocence.
Against a strong possibility the evidence Sidney Powell provided might result in Judge Sullivan dismissing the case, the DOJ filed a notice today requesting an opportunity to reply before Judge Sullivan deliberates on the Brady motion. The DOJ notice (see here) is essentially the DOJ complaining about the new and overwhelming submission of evidence.
To avoid the appearance of judicial impropriety, Judge Sullivan has instructed the DOJ to file a surreply by November 1st outlining their complaints; and then gives the Flynn defense the opportunity to refute with a sur-surreply by November 4th. (video below)
Lou Dobbs✔@LouDobbs“Abomination of Justice.” @SidneyPowell1 on why the DOJ should dismiss the case against Michael Flynn. #AmericaFirst #MAGA #Dobbs
DC Court of Appeals Issues Emergency Stay Blocking Release of Grand Jury Material to HJC…
October 29, 2019
It’s a good thing the DOJ did not wait for a ruling from Judge Howell. Instead, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an emergency administrative stay; blocking the release of the Mueller grand jury materials to the House Judiciary Committee pending the court review of the appeal from the DOJ.
The ‘stay’ suspends implementation of Judge Howell’s ruling last week until the court has the opportunity for review, and further formal motions are filed to appeal the decision.
In my humble opinion, activist judge Howell was going to wait to rule on the stay motion until after the House voted on their resolution creating the framework for their ‘impeachment inquiry. With that vote, Howell would likely have ruled against the ‘stay’ motion. The direct move to the appeals court impedes Howell’s judicial agenda.
The appellate court ruling avoids Howell’s outcome. Additionally, the undisclosed motive behind the House vote; to conjoin the HJC’s newly gained judicial enforcement authority, and judicial recognition of an official impeachment investigation; is somewhat softened.
Scalise and Jordan React to House Resolution Rules for Impeachment – Schiff Instructs Witnesses Not to Answer Questions…
October 29, 2019
The Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare impeachment scheme was further evidenced today with Lawfare lawyers Barry Berke and Norm Eisen participating in the construction of one-sided and heavily scripted rules for an ongoing ‘impeachment inquiry’.
After Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise had their first opportunity to review the rules, they held a brief presser outlining some of the ongoing manipulation by Chairman Schiff. Jordan notes that Schiff is instructing witnesses not to answer questions put forth by minority members of the inquisition.
Lawfare lawyers Barry Berke (left) and Norm Eisen (right) appear today in the basement of the House with Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler as they assist in constructing the impeachment rules. Berke and Eisen will be part of the contracted staff team questioning witnesses in the upcoming ‘public’ hearings.
Details of House “Impeachment Inquiry” Resolution – Rules for Open HPSCI Hearing(s), Lawfare Staff Questioning, and Transfer to Nadler…
October 29, 2019
Slick moves by Pelosi and Schiff’s Lawfare team. Today the contracted legal staff within House Intelligence Committee have produced a House “Impeachment Inquiry” resolution to be voted on tomorrow. The resolution (full pdf below) contains the rules constructed by Shiff’s Lawfare staff, for public HPSCI hearings.
The House impeachment resolution blocks President Trump’s lawyers from participating in the House process until the hand-off to the Judiciary Committee for article assembly.
Within the House resolution is a process to transfer the evidence from the three investigative committee chairs: Schiff, Engel and Maloney, to Jerry Nadler at Judiciary. [The process within Judicary will be assembling the ‘articles of impeachment’.]
What Pelosi/Schiff et al have assembled is a format for a highly controlled public spectacle prior to a predetermined transfer of evidence to Jerry Nadler (Judicary). With the intent to construct a pantomime for public absorption in mind, the rules are written for maximum narrative construction. [ex. Lawfare lawyers will question witnesses]
The rules within the resolution outline the guidance for at least one public hearing from the HPSCI prior to transfer to Judiciary. The Oversight Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Intelligence Committee are assembling publicly under the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) for that/those public hearing(s).
Key points from rules:
- The Executive Branch will not be permitted to participate in the open HPSCI hearing.
- President Trump lawyers will not be permitted to question witnesses in the open HPSCI hearing.
- Ranking member of HPSCI (Nunes) may have subpoena power subject to pre-approval by Chairman Adam Schiff. Requests must be made in writing. Chair is not mandated to approve.
- Ranking member of HPSCI (Nunes) may have ability to request witnesses subject to pre-approval by Chairman Adam Schiff. Requests must be made in writing. Chair is not mandated to approve.
- Schiff (Chairman) and Nunes (Ranking member) will each have 90 minutes (aggregate) to question any witness brought before the committee. All other committee members will have 5 minutes each, per witness. [Remember this is a member assembly of 3 committees]
- The Chairman can allow contracted legal staff (Lawfare) to question witnesses, as part of his 90-minutes of available questioning.
- The Chair is authorized, though not required, to make depositions public.
- Upon completion of the hearing(s), the HPSCI chairman shall write a **report to the Judiciary (Nadler) with instructions of findings. The chair may include dissent from the minority opinion therein.
[**Note: IMHO this report has already been written. That was the purpose for the basement hearings. All of this public testimony is for public consumption to support the premise of a constitutional impeachment proceedings. It’s a farce.]
- The resolution then provides a process for the HPSCI report to transfer all of the assembled tri-committee material to the House Judiciary Committee where Jerry Nadler will take over.
The next part of the resolution is the House approving of the transfer process, and setting up rules for the Judiciary Committee phase. The Judiciary Committee (HJC) then shifts to official Impeachment Hearings, prior to articles of impeachment being assembled.
- The HJC Ranking member (Doug Collins) shall have subpoena power subject to approval by the HJC Chair, Jerry Nadler.
- The HJC ranking member shall have the ability to request witness testimony, subject to approval by the HJC Chair, Jerry Nadler.
- The HJC will allow participation by President Trump’s counsel.
Within the rules, the existence of judicial enforcement authority -punishment for refusing to provide documents and witnesses by subpoena- is assumed. Based on the construction of this resolution, and with Judge Howell’s court decision still standing, this presumption by the House appears structurally solid.
Here’s the full pdf of the rules:
.
“The resolution provides rules for the format of open hearings in the House Intelligence Committee, including staff-led questioning of witnesses, and it authorizes the public release of deposition transcripts.
“The evidence we have already collected paints the picture of a President who abused his power by using multiple levers of government to press a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election. Following in the footsteps of previous impeachment inquiries, the next phase will move from closed depositions to open hearings where the American people will learn firsthand about the President’s misconduct.” (LINK)
Lawfare lawyers Barry Berke and Norm Eisen, leading participants in the construction of the impeachment rules, October 29, 2019, entering the SCIF with Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler
Note: Rep. Carolyn Maloney, has replaced Elijah Cummings as the Acting Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Troublesome – Key Republicans Unaware of Intent Behind Pelosi’s Thursday Impeachment Vote….
October 29, 2019
Very worrisome. As we feared representative Doug Collins and representative Jim Jordan have no idea what Nancy Pelosi is doing on Thursday or why she is doing it. [Outlined Here] This level of naivete’ is why republicans always lose.
The House GOP and the Executive branch do not have skilled lawyers insightful enough to see behind the moves that Speaker Pelosi is making. They are clueless. WATCH:
Jim Jordan was on Fox Morning:
.










