Tag Archives: UniParty

Feb 24 2020

WARNING! House Schedules Backroom FISA Reauthorization Hearing Without Sunlight, While FISA Court and DOJ Delay…


Re-Posted from The Conservative tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

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.

FISA Court Order – FISA Court Notice of Extension.

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.

2019 Boasberg Report:

.

2017 Collyer Report:

.

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 !

Feb 24 2020

Sunday Talks: NSA Robert O’Brien -vs- Margaret Brennan…


Re-Posted from the Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

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.

[End Segment Transcript]

Feb 24 2020

DNI Briefer Shelby Pierson “Overstated” (Manufactured) Intel on Russia Election Interference…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

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.”…

Feb 24 2020

Sunday Talks: Lindsey Graham -vs- Maria Bartiromo…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

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:

Feb 24 2020

President Trump Impromptu Presser Departing White House – Video and Transcript


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

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]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody.

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.

END 9:14 A.M. EST

Feb 23 2020

Deep State Judge!


ORDER IN THE DEEP STATE COURT

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.

—Ben Garrison

 

Feb 23 2020

Is Bloomberg a Dangerous Threat to the American Constitution?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Re-Posted Feb 21, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

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.

Feb 23 2020

National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien: “White House Was Never Provided any Intelligence Briefing on Russia Election Effort”…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 22, 2020 by 

Former Acting DNI Joseph Maguire did not brief the white house prior to taking Shelby Pierson, the person in charge of evaluating intelligence regarding election security, to lead the presentation to the house intel committee (HPSCI).   That’s the key takeaway from a taped preview of National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien on Face The Nation.

.

With NSA O’Brien confirming what many suspected it begs the question 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 committee; and there was no intelligence presented to support the claims made by Democrats and media.

Sending shockwaves through the intelligence community, now Acting DNI Grenell has asked the intelligence community, including Shelby Pierson to produce the underlying intelligence within her briefing. It is reported that Pierson and the alliance of intelligence around her are going bananas. Sounds like Ms. Pierson might not last long.

[WASHINGTON] – […] Mr. Grenell has also requested the intelligence behind the classified briefing last week before the House Intelligence Committee where officials told lawmakers that Russia was interfering in November’s presidential election and that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia favored President Trump’s re-election.

[…] Joseph Maguire, the former acting director of national intelligence, and his deputy, Andrew P. Hallman, resigned on Friday. Mr. Grenell told Mr. Hallman, popular in the office’s Liberty Crossing headquarters, that his service was no longer needed, according to two officials. Mr. Hallman, who has worked in the office or at the C.I.A. for three decades, expressed confidence in his colleagues in a statement but also referred to the “uncertainties that come with change.”

[…] As acting director of national intelligence, Mr. Grenell has access to any secrets he may want to review. And he has requested access to information from the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies, according to two people familiar with the matter. (more)

There’s also a common sense aspect here that many overlook.  The CIA, FBI, ODNI and Intelligence Community (IC) writ large participated in the effort to eliminate candidate Trump and President Trump.   As such all of the mid-level personnel within those agencies are at risk of exposure for their participation.

The top officials, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey have all left their respective agencies, but they didn’t work alone.  Underneath those offices were intelligence officials who facilitated the objectives. Many of those career officials are likely still in place.

.

Feb 22 2020

Jon McNaughton’s Latest Artwork: “You are Fake News”…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 21, 2020 by 

Artist Jon McNaughton presents his latest artwork centered around the current state of U.S. politics and President Donald J Trump. [Visit Website Here]

.

Chopper pressers are the best pressers…

Feb 22 2020

White House Briefing on Upcoming President and First Lady Trip to India…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 21, 2020 by 

The White House has provided a great deal of background information on the upcoming trip to India by President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump.

WHITE HOUSE – SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks to everyone for joining this call. The topic of the call: This is a background briefing with senior administration officials on President Donald J. Trump’s travel to India.

The briefing is embargoed until 2:30 p.m. and it’s offered on background attributed to a “senior administration official.”

Now, for your information only, we have two senior administration officials with us today. We have [senior administration officials].

Now, please, again, this is on background, attributed to a “senior administration official,” so that will be your information only.

So, at this point, I will turn it over to [senior administration official], who will begin our briefing.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hello, and thank you for being here. First, I’ll run through the official delegation for the trip to India. With the President and the First Lady, there will be a 12-person official delegation. That will include:

* Ambassador Ken Juster, the United States Ambassador to of India
* Secretary Wilbur Ross, of Commerce Department
* Secretary Dan Brouillette, of the Energy Department
* Mick Mulvaney, Assistant to the President and Acting Chief of Staff
* National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien
* Ivanka Trump, Assistant to the President and Advisor to the President
* Jared Kushner, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the President
* Stephen Miller, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Policy
* Dan Scavino, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor for Digital Strategy
* Lindsay Reynolds, Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady
* Robert Blair, Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Telecommunication Policy and Senior Advisor to the Chief of Staff

And the final member of the official delegation is:

* Stephanie Grisham, Assistant to the President and Press Secretary and Director of Communications for the President and First Lady

And additional bilateral meeting participants include:

* Adam Boehler, Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation
* Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC
* Lisa Curtis, Deputy Assistant to the President for South and Central Asian Affairs
* Mr. Kash Patel, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism
* And finally, Mr. Mike Passey, Director for India, National Security Council

I’ll quickly run through the schedule, give an overview.

The President will arrive in India, in Ahmedabad, in the state of Gujarat, on Monday, where he’ll deliver remarks at Sardar Patel Stadium with Prime Minister Modi.

The President and the First Lady will then go with Prime Minister Modi to visit the Taj, in Agra.

They will then fly to New Delhi and rest overnight in New Delhi, and have a full program on Tuesday. This will include ceremonial events, bilateral meetings with the Prime Minister, a business event with Indian investors, with a special focus on companies that are investing in manufacturing in the U.S.

He’ll have a meet-and-greet with embassy staff and a meeting with the President of India. And to cap it off, there will be a state dinner at the presidential palace, called Rashtrapati Bhavan, on Tuesday evening.

And I’ll give just a few overview remarks before we go into the Q&A about what the President hopes to accomplish in this visit.

The President is going to India as a demonstration of the strong and enduring ties between our two countries. These are ties based on shared democratic traditions, common strategic interests, and enduring bonds between our people. And, in part, this has been exemplified by the very close relationship between the President and Prime Minister Modi.

So the visit will focus on several key areas. First, we’ll focus on building our economic and energy ties. Just to note that two-way trade in goods and services exceeded $142 billion in 2018, and there’s certainly much more room to grow, particularly in energy.

The Strategic Energy Partnership that was launched by President Trump and Prime Minister Modi in 2017 has paid major dividends. It’s improved energy security. It’s encouraged the production of more energy. And it’s facilitated Indian imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG, and coal.

And, certainly, India is the fifth-largest economy in the world, has huge energy needs. And the U.S. is ready to help India meet those needs. Indeed, in 2016, U.S. energy exports to India have grown 500 percent to nearly $7 billion.

Second, we will focus on defense and security cooperation to both fight terrorism and promote a free and open Indo-Pacific. The U.S. wants an India that is strong, with a capable military that supports peace, stability, and a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region.

Indeed, India is a pillar of our Indo-Pacific strategy, and we continue to work together to promote this vision of a free and open international system based on market economics, good governance, freedom of the seas and skies, and respect for sovereignty.

And our shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific really goes to the heart of what binds our two countries together, and this is our shared democratic systems that place a premium on citizen-centric governments. In fact, India has a strong foundation of democracy, going back to the early days, right after independence. India is a country rich in religious, linguistic, and cultural diversity. In fact, it’s the birthplace of four major world religions.

Prime Minister Modi, in his first speech after winning the election last year, talked about how he would prioritize being inclusive of India’s religious minorities. And, certainly, the world looks to India to maintain religious liberty and equal treatment for all under the rule of law.

So, to sum up, this visit will build upon our many shared values, our strategic and economic interests, and lock in those gains made in the relationship by the administration over the last three years.

And that concludes my opening remarks. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So, Operator, I think we’re ready now to take a few questions.

Q Hi, it’s Andrew Feinberg with Breakfast Media. Thanks for doing this call. Given your remarks just now about your commitment to ensuring religious freedom in India, is the President planning on saying anything to Prime Minister Modi about his government’s attempt to keep Muslim migrants from being able to gain Indian citizenship, or the National Registry of Citizens, which is, some reports are saying, excluding Muslim — people of Muslim descent who have lived in India for many years from retaining their citizenship?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. I think President Trump will talk about our shared tradition of democracy and religious freedom both in his public remarks and then certainly in private. He will raise these issues, particularly the religious freedom issue, which is extremely important to this administration.

As I talked about, we do have this shared commitment to upholding our universal values, the rule of law. We have great respect for India’s democratic traditions and institutions, and we will continue to encourage India to uphold those traditions.

And we are concerned with some of the issues that you have raised. And I think that the President will talk about these issues in his meetings with Prime Minister Modi and note that the world is looking to India to continue to uphold its democratic traditions, respect for religious minorities. Of course, it’s in the Indian constitution — religious freedom, respect for religious minorities, and equal treatment of all religions in India.

So this is something that is important to the President and I’m sure it will come up.

Q Hi, this is Kathleen Stubbs with the Asahi Shimbun. Thank you for doing this call. My question is: What will be the nature and structure of the press conferences? When might they be scheduled for?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The details will be worked out on the site there. We can’t provide the specific details of the logistics at this time.

Q Hi, this is Mara Lee from International Trade Today. I wanted to see if you all had any thoughts on the likelihood that India’s participation in the Generalized System of Preferences could be restored. I take it there’s not going to be an announcement during this trip, but might there be enough progress to get that done later in 2020?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The concerns that led to the revocation, suspension of India’s GSP access remains a concern for us. And to remind those on the call it was really the failure of the Indian government to provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors.

We continue to talk to our Indian colleagues about addressing these market access barriers. Our trade teams led by USTR have been in touch with their counterparts over the past several weeks. That engagement will continue.

The trade and economic relationship with India is critically important to the United States, and I think also access to the United States market is critical to the Indian government. We do want to make sure that we get this balance right. We want to address a bunch — a lot of concerns, and we’re not quite there yet.

We will likely have discussion with the Prime Minister about these concerns and continue the discussion beyond this visit.

Q Hi, there. This is Jill Colvin from the Associated Press. I just wanted to be clear: So, do you expect any progress whatsoever on the trade front? Are there specific discussions that are planned? The President had sort of alluded that there could be potentially some progress made.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, we have had a number of announcements coming from India in the past several weeks, which are making the discussions a bit more difficult perhaps. Recent announcements on Make in India have made the protectionism concerns in India even greater. So we will be discussing those concerns. And what we see as an increase in barriers, not a decrease, this will certainly come up among the leaders.

Whether or not there will be announcement on a trade package is, really, wholly dependent upon what the Indians are prepared to do. That said, we have a number of significant commercial deals, which are of great significance that we’re very pleased to announce in a number of key sectors.

Q Yes. Hi, this is Adam Behsudi with Politico. Can you say with any more detail on where the sticking points were on some of the trade issues in terms of not being able to come together? Or was it really down to the actions that India has taken in the last couple months and weeks on trade?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think many of the concerns about private sector are well documented. Certainly throughout the GSP process, you had a number of key market access issues raised by stakeholder communities in the United States.
But the Make in India push of the Indian government, as I noted, has made the protectionism concerns even more of a concern to us. We’ve seen India’s budget process recently used to raise tariffs on products of interest in the United States. We continue to see important divergences on e-commerce and digital trade. So it’s a pretty wide scope, frankly, of important service and goods access barriers that we need to address.

Q Hi, this is (inaudible) from The Hindu. I guess my question is to [senior administration official]. Thank you for your comment. I was wondering, should we expect President Trump to offer to mediate on Kashmir again? And will there be any discussion on Afghanistan? There are reports about Indian troops in Afghanistan. Should we expect some sort of request from the U.S. side on that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think what you’ll hear from the President is very much encouraging a reduction in tensions between India and Pakistan, encouraging the two countries to engage in bilateral dialogue with each other to resolve their differences.

We continue to believe a core foundation of any successful dialogue between the two is based on continued momentum in Pakistan’s efforts to crack down on terrorists and extremists on its territory. So we continue to look for that.

But I think the President will urge both countries to seek to maintain peace and stability along the line of control and refrain from actions or statements that could increase tensions in the region.

And with regard to the second part of your question, I think was that on the — what was the second part of your question?

Q The question was on Afghanistan. Will there be an ask for India on that? Will President Trump ask for Indian troops? There are reports about this.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Right now, the U.S. is focused on the peace process in Afghanistan. You saw there was a major announcement by Secretary Pompeo where we have finalized an understanding with the Taliban to reduce violence in Afghanistan. So we see this as a major step forward, and we’re focused on that.

With regard to India, we would just encourage India, as we are all regional countries, to do whatever it can to support this peace process so that it can be successful and we can potentially end 19 years of military, [DEL: diplomatic, economic :DEL] engagement. You know, that we can end the military engagement. We will be continuing our diplomatic and economic engagement, which has been there over the last 19 years.

But we certainly would look to India to support this peace process — an important country in the region, important to the overall stability of the region. So I think if the issue comes up, that is what would be the request from the President.

Q Hi, this is Alex Lawson from Law360. There was some talk yesterday in the private sector about the potential for some kind of MOU, a memorandum specifically on intellectual property. I know there’s been a number of sort of sticking points in the U.S. business community about pharmaceutical patents in India and some other things.

Do you have any details on what might come on that front during the trip?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t have any specific details on that particular MOU. We’ll be looking at a few handful of agreements on the defense, (inaudible), energy front, but I don’t have any specific details on the MOU that you mentioned.

OPERATOR: We have no other questions at this time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Great. Well, thank you everyone again for joining us. And again, the backgrounder is from senior administration officials on background. And you’re now — we’ll lift the embargo at this point, and you are free to go ahead.

So thank you very much for your time and help. Bye-bye.

END 2:21 P.M. EST