President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump host a reciprocal dinner with H.R.H. Prince Charles and his wife H.R.H Duchess Camilla Parker-Bowles at the Winfield House, the official residence of U.S. Ambassador Woody Johnson.
Video of Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, arrival at Winfield House to attend a dinner hosted by visiting U.S. President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump:
Dinner Menu: Steak and Potatoes
.
The dinner at the residence of the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom came on the second day of Trump’s official state visit to the country.
.
Earlier in the day President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump welcomed to Number 10, Downing Street, by British Prime Minister Theresa May and her husband Philip May.
.
After the initial welcome President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump, inside they were shown a hand written copy of the American Declaration of Independence on display inside a glass case. One of only two known handwritten copies.
.
While President Trump and Prime Minister May were engaged in bilateral discussions, First lady Melania Trump and Philip May attended a garden party at 10 Downing Street. The second day of US President Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK.
.
A review of Winston Churchill’s basement war room:
In the Weissmann/Mueller case against Michael Flynn there are two material points of evidence central to the underlying issue:
The FBI 302 report written by agent Joe Pientka; as an outcome of the interview of Michael Flynn January 24th, 2017, conducted by Peter Strzok and Pientka.
The recording/transcript of the December 29th, 2016, phone call intercept between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
According to the special counsel position Flynn lied about the 12/29/16 phone call content during the 1/24/17 FBI interview. However, this always appeared to be a sketchy claim. Seemingly suspecting something was amiss, in two separate court demands, Judge Emmet Sullivan requested production of both the Flynn 302 and the transcript of the call.
The special counsel’s office (Brandon Van Grack), and the DC U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, refused to provide the underlying evidence to the court. Instead they informed the court the material was irrelevant to their prosecution of Flynn:
The recordings are part of the underlying case against Flynn, upon which the FBI questioning took place. However, the DOJ claimed the recordings are not part of the prosecution for “lying to FBI investigators” aspect; therefore, no recordings would be produced.
It seems like a very odd parsing of evidence presented to the court (for sentencing), and underlying evidence never shown to the court, used in prosecuting. It is also worth noting within this position; and considering the plea agreement was signed in November of 2017; the defense team was likely never provided the FD-302 written by Pientka, and/or the transcript of the call.
The outstanding question was: will judge Emmet Sullivan accept the position of the prosecution and allow non-production? Today we get the answer:
So the judge is accepting the position of the special counsel prosecutors.
Apparently Flynn will be sentenced without anyone ever looking at the underlying evidence and comparing the claim of “lying” against the call transcript and interview.
It is speculation, but perhaps the reason for dropping everything “as is” relates to the potential for the institutions of government, specifically as it relates to FISA abuse, to be badly damaged [assuming Flynn was under FISA authorized surveillance].
The Sullivan determination allows everyone to exit the case without further scrutiny.
BACKSTORY…
On December 29, 2016, President Obama announced a series of sanctions against Russians who were located in Maryland. This was Obama’s carefully constructed response to provide additional validity to the Joint Analysis Report. After fueling the Russia conspiracy for several weeks the Obama administration knew this action would initiate a response from both Russia and the incoming Trump administration.
After the December 29, 2016, sanctions against Russia, the Obama IC were monitoring Kislyak communications and watching for contact with the incoming Trump administration.
Additionally, it is suspected Flynn may have been under a FISA surveillance warrant which seems confirmed by the Weissmann/Mueller report. The FBI intercepted, recorded, and later transcribed the conversation. [Notice how Judge Sullivan says: “and any other audio recordings”; ie he’s suspecting additional surveillance.]
In the January 2017 background, the media were continuing to follow the lead from the Obama White House, and Intelligence Community (writ large), by fueling a narrative that any contact with Russians was proof of collusion of some sort. In addition, the communications team of the Obama White House, DOJ, FBI and aggregate IC began pushing a narrative surrounding the obscure Logan Act.
The ridiculous Logan Act angle was promoted by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and targeted to infer that any action taken by the Trump campaign prior to taking office was interference with the political Obama Russia action. Any contact with Russian government officials would be evidence of collusion. That was the plan. DOJ Deputy AG Sally Yates was in charge of pushing the Logan Act narrative to the media.
The first two weeks of January 2017 was a merging of two necessary narratives: (1) Russian interference; and (2) the Logan Act. Each deployed against any entity who would counter the Russia narrative story.
The media were running this dual narrative 24/7 against the incoming Trump officials and demanding repeated answers to questions that were framed around this story-line.
On January 3rd, 2017, the new congressional year began. SSCI Vice-Chair Dianne Feinstein abdicated her position within the Gang-of-Eight, and turned over the reigns to Senator Mark Warner. Warner was now the vice-chair of the SSCI; and a Go8 member.
We assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence. (pdf link)
It is not coincidental the ICA was “high confidence” by Brennan and Clapper; and less confidence by Mike Rogers (NSA).
With the Flynn Dec. 29, 2016, transcript in hand, the DOJ and FBI began aiding the Logan Act narrative with Obama intelligence officials supporting the Russia Conspiracy claims and decrying anyone who would interfere or counter the official U.S. position.
On January 14th, 2017, the content of the communication between Flynn and Kislyak was leaked to the Washington Post by an unknown entity. Likely the leak came from the FBI’s counterintelligence operation; the same unit previously carrying out the 2016 campaign spying operations. [Andrew McCabe is highly suspected]
The FBI CoIntel group (Strzok, McCabe etc.), and the DOJ-NSD group (Yates, McCord etc.) were the largest stakeholders in the execution of the insurance policy phase because they were the epicenter of spygate, fraudulent FISA presentations and the formation of the Steele Dossier.
The media leak of the Flynn conversation with Kislyak was critical because the DOJ/FBI were pushing a political narrative. This was not about legality per se’, this effort was about establishing the framework for a preexisting investigation, based on a false premise, that would protect the DOJ and FBI. The investigation they needed to continue evolved into the Mueller special counsel. This was all insurance.
The Flynn-Kislyak leak led to Vice-President Mike Pence being hammered on January 15th, 2017, during a CBS Face the Nation interview about Trump campaign officials in contact with Russians. Pence was exceptionally unprepared to answer the questions and allowed the media to blend questions about campaign contacts with necessary, and entirely appropriate, transition team contacts.
•Sunday January 15th, 2017 – VP-elect Mike Pence appears on Face The Nation. [Transcript Here]
JOHN DICKERSON: But there’s a distinction between that feeling about the press and legitimate inquiry, as you say, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is doing.
Just to button up one question, did any advisor or anybody in the Trump campaign have any contactwith the Russians who were trying to meddle in the election?
MIKE PENCE:Of course not. And I think to suggest that is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy. (link)
*NOTE* The incoming administration was under a false-narrative siege created by the media. At the time (early Jan, 2017) ‘any contact’ with Russians was evidence of meddling/election-collusion with Russians. VP-elect Mike Pence poorly answered the question from Dickerson from a very defensive position.
The toxic media environment and Mike Pence speaking poorly during a Face The Nation interview now became a much bigger issue.
Once Vice-President Mike Pence made the statement that Flynn had no contact with anyone from Russia etc. any contradictory statement from Flynn would make Pence appear compromised. Michael Flynn is now contrast against Pence’s false point without clarification. As National Security Advisor Flynn was interviewed by the FBI on January 24th, nine days after Pence made his comments.
During this ambush interview, disguised as a meeting, FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka were contrasting Vice-President-elect Pence’s statements to CBS against the known action of Mike Flynn. [Flynn has three options: either (1) Flynn contradicts Pence, or (2) he tells a lie; or (3) Flynn explains Pence misspoke, those were his options.]
How Flynn responded to the line of inquiry, and explained/reconciled the difference between Pence’s statement on Jan 15th and what actually took place on December 29th, 2016, is why the FBI ended up with the initial conclusion that Flynn wasn’t lying.
It is within this dynamic where the FD-302 reports, written by Strzok and Pientka, then became the subject of political manipulation by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
The FBI knew the content of the Flynn call with Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in. The FBI were intercepting those communications. So when Pence said no-one had any contact on January 15th, the FBI crew IMMEDIATELY knew they had an issue to exploit.
We see the evidence of the FBI knowing they had an issue to exploit, and being very nervous about doing it, in the text messages between Lisa Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok who would end up doing the questioning of Flynn.
The day before the Flynn interview:
♦January 23, 2017, the day before the Flynn interview, Lisa Page says: “I can feel my heart beating harder, I’m so stressed about all the ways THIS has the potential to go fully off the rails.” Weird!
♦Strzok replies: “I know. I just talked with John, we’re getting together as soon as I get in to finish that write up for Andy (MCCABE) this morning.” Strzok agrees with Page about being stressed that “THIS” could go off the rails… (Strzok’s meeting w Flynn the next day)
[We’re not 100% sure who “John” is, it is highly likely to be Johnathan Moffa; However, we know “Bill” is Bill Priestap, FBI Deputy Director in charge of Counterintelligence. And “Jen” is Jennifer Boone, FBI counterproliferation division]
So it’s the day before they interview Flynn.
Why would Page & Strzok be stressed about “THIS” potentially going off the rails?
The answer is simple: they knew the content of the phone call between Mike Flynn and Sergey Kislyak because they were listening in, and they were about to exploit the Pence statement to CBS. In essence they were admitting to monitoring Flynn, that’s why they were so nervous. They were planning and plotting with Andrew McCabe about how they were going to exploit the phone-tap and the difference in public statements by VP Mike Pence.
There’s a good possibility Flynn was honest but his honesty contradicted Pence’s national statement on CBS; and Flynn likely tried to dance through a needle without being overly critical of VP-elect Pence misspeaking. Remember, the alternative: if Flynn is brutally honest, the media now runs with a narrative about Vice-President Pence as a national liar.
•WednesdayJanuary 25th, 2017, – The Department of Justice, National Security Division, (at this timeframe Mary McCord was head of the DOJ-NSD) – received a detailed readout from the FBI agents who had interviewed Flynn. Yates said she felt “it was important to get this information to the White House as quickly as possible.”
•ThursdayJanuary 26th – (morning) Yates called White House Counsel Don McGahn first thing that morning to tell him she had “a very sensitive matter” that had to be discussed face to face. McGahn agreed to meet with Yates later that afternoon.
•Thursday January 26th – (afternoon) Sally Yates traveled to the White House along with a senior member of the DOJ’s National Security Division, “who was overseeing the matter”, that is Mary McCord. This was Yates’ first meeting with McGahn in his office, which also acts as a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF).
Yates said she began their meeting by laying out the media accounts and media statements made by Vice President Mike Pence and other high-ranking White House officials about General Flynn’s activity “that we knew not to be the truth.”
According to Sally Yates testimony, she and Mary McCord presented all the information to McGahn so the White House could take action that they deemed appropriate. When asked by McGahn if Flynn should be fired, Yates answered, “that really wasn’t our call.”
Yates also said her decision to notify the White House counsel had been discussed “at great length.” According to her testimony: “Certainly leading up to our notification on the 26th, it was a topic of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community.”
•Friday January 27th – (morning) White House Counsel Don McGahn called Yates in the morning and asked if she could come back to his office.
•Friday January 27th – (late afternoon) According to her testimony, Sally Yates returned to the White House late that afternoon. One of McGahn’s topics discussed was whether Flynn could be prosecuted for his conduct.
Specifically, according to Yates, one of the questions *McGahn asked Yates: “Why does it matter to DOJ if one White House official lies to another?” She explained that it “was a whole lot more than that,” and reviewed the same issues outlined the prior day.
[*If you consider that McGahn was trying to thread the needle between Mike Pence’s poorly worded response to CBS, and Michael Flynn’s FBI questioning that came after Pence’s statement, McGahn would see the no-win situation Flynn was in during that inquisition.]
McGahn then expressed his concern that taking any action might interfere with the FBI investigation of Flynn, and Yates said it wouldn’t: “It wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” Yates claims to have told McGahn.
McGahn asked if he could look at the underlying evidence of Flynn’s conduct, and she said they would work with the FBI over the weekend and “get back with him on Monday morning.”
•Friday January 27th, 2017 – (evening) In what appears to be only a few hours later, President Trump is having dinner with FBI Director James Comey where President Trump asked if he was under investigation. Trump was, but to continue the auspices of the ongoing investigation, Comey lied and told him he wasn’t.
This why the issue of how the FBI agents write the 302 summary of the Flynn interview becomes such an important facet. We see that dynamic again playing out in the messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok; with Andrew McCabe providing the guidance.
Don’t forget, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was likely the person who leaked the content of the Mike Flynn phone call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak to the Washington Post. A massive leak of highly classified information:
Within the case against Michael Flynn, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack later filed a cover letter attempting to explain the reason for the Flynn interview on January 24th, 2017, and a delay in the official filing of the interview notes (FD-302) on February 15th, 2017, and then another edit on May 31st, 2017.
To explain the FBI delay, Van Grack claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL” (screen grab)
What the special counsel appeared to be obfuscating was a process of deliberation within the investigative unit, headed by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, surrounding the specific wording of the 302 report on the Flynn interview. Likely how best to word the FBI notes for maximum damage.
In late 2018 Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack was attempting to hide the length of the small group deliberations within the FBI. In hindsight it seems he did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written.
However, we know there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, because we can see the deliberations in text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok: See below (note the dates):
The text message conversation above is February 14th, 2017.
The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report:
The interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record on February 15th.
It was a deliberative document from the outset. Thanks to the Strzok/Page text messages we know the cover letter from the Special Counsel is misleading. The Feb 15th, 2017, date was the day after McCabe approved it (three weeks after the FBI interview).
May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein.
This level of overt corruption, and corrupt intent within the special counsel, is one of the more brutally obvious reasons why authorizing Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein should be regarded as participating in a political framing against the Trump White House.
The FBI interpretation of the Flynn interview was the way the DOJ and FBI could control the interview content; and specifically because the only recourse Flynn would have to contradict that FBI interpretation would be to compromise the Vice President… Flynn cannot openly challenge the structure of the narrative within the 302 outline.
See what happened?
Does it all make sense now?
Do you see why there are reports of the second FBI agent, Joe Pientka, saying he didn’t believe Flynn lied to them in the interview. Likely because Flynn didn’t lie; but the McCabe crew jumped on the opportunity to frame a lose/lose. Either Flynn accepts a version of the 302 report where he lied; or, Flynn has to take the position that Vice President Mike Pence lied to the nation in the CBS Face The Nation interview.
See how that went down?
However, after Weissmann and Mueller enter the picture, they need to force Flynn to admit to the construct of the 302 as presented. For that they need some leverage.
The original authorization for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was May 17th, 2017. The recently released Weissmann report shows there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe. The first scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel.
The second scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017. The transparent intent of the second scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes. One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.
As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:
This second scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr. Additionally this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.
The four identified targets within the original July 2016 investigation, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, were George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. (See HPSCI report):
General Flynn was under investigation from the outset in mid-2016. The fraudulent FBI counterintelligence operation, established by CIA Director John Brennan, had Flynn as one of the early targets when Brennan handed the originating electronic communication “EC” to FBI Director James Comey on/around July 31st, 2016.
The investigation of General Flynn never stopped throughout 2016 and led to the second investigative issue of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak:
The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unknown. However, the second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.
In combination with the October 2017 timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.
This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and cornering him into a guilty plea.
Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo #2) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.
Forcing a plea for ‘lying to investigators‘ by threatening prosecution for FARA violations was the identical strategy used against both George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn.
The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted. After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby.
The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening. A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:
In what seems like a reversal, the DNC-contracted author of the infamously sketchy dossier on Trump, Christopher Steele, is now willing to cooperate with U.S. authorities.
Steele was hired by Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson as an outcome of a contract between the Clinton campaign and Fusion-GPS. Steele was hired by Fusion to work with Nellie Ohr (wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr), generate political opposition research, and write a dossier targeting candidate Donald Trump.
According to the London Financial Times, the former MI6 intelligence operative is willing to talk to U.S. investigators, likely Michael Horowitz, regarding his contact with corrupt DOJ and FBI officials during the 2016 campaign and seditious aftermath.
(Daily Caller) Former British spy Christopher Steele has agreed to meet in London with U.S. officials regarding the dossier, The Times of London is reporting.
A source close to Steele told the newspaper he plans to meet with American authorities within the next several weeks, but only about his interactions with the FBI and only with the approval of the British government. (more)
His testimony could be a key issue to expose corruption within the FBI that was previously identified by Senator Chuck Grassley. The FBI said Christopher Steele never told them he was shopping his dossier to the media; however, Christopher Steele told a British court the FBI was fully aware of all his media contacts, and they used the dossier anyway.
Christopher Steele had no motive to lie to the FBI about his media contacts.
The FBI had tons of motive to lie about their knowing Steele talked to the media.
It’s just common sense.
Christopher Steele wasn’t meeting in secret with the media, it was well known. He was traveling around to meet them in August and September 2016. Why would he lie to the FBI about such transparently well known action in October? Answer: He wouldn’t.
Back in April 2019 Margot Cleveland presented an interesting article in The Federalist outlining how the DOJ (Mueller) investigation of Christopher Steele was dropped [READ HERE]. Essentially the Cleveland article outlines how Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley sent a criminal referral of Chris Steele to Rosenstein/Mueller in January 2018; however the case was used as a shield to ward-off FOIA inquiry, but the case was never actually pursued – and eventually dropped.
At the time of the 2018 referral CTH noted the Grassley/Graham referral was not what it appeared [See Here]. Additionally, with hindsight and a greater understanding of the Weissmann-Mueller team corruption, we can see how that specific referral hits the center of the FBI intent around their Russia collusion-conspiracy.
The issue surrounds the October 2016 Carter Page FISA application and how the Steele Dossier was used therein.
When the stories first broke about the Steele Dossier being the majority of the FBI evidence (December 2017), the FBI investigators were claiming they were never aware of Chris Steele shopping his dossier to the media. However, at the same time Glenn Simpson was testifying to congress the FBI fully knew Chris Steele was shopping the dossier.
SIDE NOTE: The need for everyone to see what Fusion-GPS (Glenn Simpson) was saying is the reason why Dianne Feinstein “accidentally” released the Simpson transcript (remember, she had a cold). Feinstein released the transcript five days after the Graham/Grassley referral. Democrats knew everyone in the FBI needed to be on the same page and reading from the same manuscript; she needed to tip-off corrupt DOJ and FBI officials abotu the testimony of Glenn Simpson. I hope everyone can clearly see this now.
Remember, Robert Mueller took over the counterintelligence investigation; so the FBI investigators from Crossfire Hurricane (2016) were now the same “40 FBI investigators” on Mueller’s team in 2017.
In late 2017 and early 2018 those FBI investigators were saying they were not aware of Steele shopping the dossier to the media; AND they were also claiming that Chris Steele never told them. However, Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS), and later Chris Steele himself, were telling a completely different story. According to Simpson and Steele the FBI was fully aware of Steele shopping the dossier.
Enter Senator Graham and Senator Grassley.
Senators Graham and Grassley suspected, likely knew, the FBI/DOJ was the group lying about this ‘Steele/Dossier/Media’ angle in an effort to support the validity of the Dossier used in the FISA application. In order to prove the DOJ and FBI were lying, Grassley and Graham sent a criminal referral to Rod Rosenstein:
Essentially Graham and Grassley were saying: ‘if the FBI is being truthful, then Chris Steele lied to the FBI’… so go prosecute him.
Remember, these FBI agents are on Mueller’s team and the criminal referral was sent to Rosenstein; but due to the scope of Mueller’s investigation the referral was -in effect- being sent to Robert Mueller.
It is the FBI who lied to the FISA Court in the application. It is the FBI who were claiming in their FISA application the dossier was not ‘shopped’. It was the FBI attempting to enhance the dossier credibility by making statements/claims about what Chris Steele presented to them. It is NOT Christopher Steele making these claims. Christopher Steele knew the ‘dossier’ was presented to media. Heck, Christopher Steele briefed media.
It was Robert Mueller’s FBI investigators who were lying; and the referral was sent to Robert Mueller because the special counsel held all jurisdiction on the Russian collusion investigation; and at the heart of that investigation was the Steele Dossier and FISA application. Mueller’s 2017, 2018 and 2019 FBI team were essentially investigating the claims within the Steele Dossier they helped create in 2016.
This is where Margot Cleveland’s article comes in. The FBI used the Grassley/Graham criminal referral, the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation, to argue against public disclosure (and enforce redactions) within the James Comey’s memos on May 4, 2018. However, in December of 2018 those reasons for redaction were dropped because the criminal investigation was no longer ongoing. Heck, it was never opened.
The FBI used the referral as a shield and never investigated the underlying claim because the referral would have actually proved FBI lying, not Chris Steele lying.
♦ The key takeaway is to point out the scale of corruption amid the forty FBI investigators participating in the Mueller Probe. [BACKSTORY HERE]
They honestly don’t think we can see them. They act like the Wizard of Oz after the curtain has been pulled back & they are still shouting into the microphone.
It is quite amazing.
After Glenn Simpson delivered his testimony, Grassley knew the FBI was lying about the dossier. In an early 2018 speech on the Senate Floor Grassley outlined the problem.
…”If those [FBI] documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one”…
This is likely why Steele is now willing to talk to investigators. The aspect of the FBI lying about knowledge of Steele talking to media speaks to their motives in using the dossier for the FISA warrant. A motive to use the dossier regardless of the false content.
53) The Discrepancies
“If those [FBI] documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one. #ReleaseTheMemopic.twitter.com/nHWB7L7M4G
After President Trump and Prime Minister May hold bilateral meetings and a working lunch they are anticipated to hold a joint press conference at 8:45am EST / 1:45pm BST.
UPDATE: Video and Transcript Added
[Transcript] PRIME MINISTER MAY: This week, we commemorate the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of those who gave their lives for our liberty on D-Day, 75 years ago. As leaders prepare to gather here from across the world, it is fitting that we begin with a celebration of the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States, enduring partners who stood side-by-side on that historic day and every day since.
For generations, at the heart of the transatlantic alliance has been our shared democratic values, our common interests, and our commitment to justice. It is that unity of purpose that will preserve the deep-rooted ties between our people and underpin our nation’s security and prosperity for the next 75 years and beyond.
So, I am very pleased to welcome the President of the United States of America on this State Visit to the United Kingdom.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much, Theresa.
PRIME MINISTER MAY: For the past two and half years, the President and I have had the duty and privilege of being the latest guardians of this precious and profound friendship between our countries. As with our predecessors, when we have faced threats to the security of our citizens and our allies, we have stood together and acted together.
When Russia used a deadly nerve agent on the streets of our country, alongside the UK’s expulsions, the President expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers — the largest contribution towards an unprecedented global response. And, in Syria, when innocent men, women, and children were victims of a barbaric chemical weapons attack, Britain and America, along with France, carried out targeted strikes against the regime.
Since we spoke about NATO during my first visit to the White House, we have maintained our support for this crucial alliance. Thanks in part to your clear message on burden sharing, Donald, we have seen members pledge another $100 billion, increasing their contributions to our shared security.
And I’m pleased to announce that NATO will soon be able to call on the UK’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and F-35 fighter jets to help tackle threats around the world.
Today, we’ve discussed again the new and evolving challenges to our security, our values, and our way of life. We share the same view about their origin and our objectives in meeting them.
But like prime ministers and presidents before us, and no doubt those that will come after, we can also differ sometimes on how to confront the challenges we face.
I’ve always talked openly with you, Donald, when we have taken a different approach and you’ve done the same with me. I’ve always believed that cooperation and compromise are the basis of strong alliances, and nowhere is this more true than in the special relationship.
Today, we’ve discussed again the importance of our two nations working together to address Iran’s destabilizing activity in the region and to ensure Tehran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon.
Although we differ on the means of achieving that — as I’ve said before, the UK continues to stand by the nuclear deal — it is clear that we both want to reach the same goal. It is important that Iran meets its obligations and we do everything to avoid escalation, which is in no one’s interest.
Recognizing our nations are safer and more prosperous when we work together on the biggest challenges of our time, I also set out the UK’s approach to tackling climate change and our continued support for the Paris Agreement.
And we also spoke about China, recognizing its economic significance and that we cannot ignore action that threatens our shared interests or values.
As we’ve deepened our cooperation on security, including our joint military operations and our unparalleled intelligence sharing, so our economies, too, are ever more tightly bound together.
Every morning, one million Americans get up and go to work for British companies in America, and one million Britons do the same for American companies here.
Our trading relationship is worth over £190 billion a year and we’re the largest investors in each other’s economies, with mutual investments valued at as much as $1 trillion.
Mr. President, you and I agreed the first time we met that we should aim for an ambitious free trade agreement when the UK leaves the EU. And from our positive discussions today, I know that we both remain committed to this.
I’m also sure that our economic relationship will only grow broader and deeper, building on the conversations we had and the ideas we heard from UK and U.S. businesses when we met them earlier today.
Tomorrow, we will sit down in Portsmouth with our fellow leaders to reaffirm the enduring importance of the Western alliance and the shared values that underpin it.
And as we look to the future, in the years and in the generations ahead, we will continue to work together to preserve the alliance that is the bedrock of our shared prosperity and security, just as it was on the beaches of Normandy, 75 years ago.
Mr. President.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you, Prime Minister May. Melania and I are honored to return to London as our nations commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day in World War Two. We want to thank Her Majesty the Queen, who I had a lovely dinner with last night — a fantastic person, fantastic woman — for so graciously inviting us to this State Visit. It was very, very special.
Our thanks as well to Prime Minister and Mr. May for the warm welcome they’ve given the First Lady and me, as we remember the heroes who laid down their lives to rescue civilization itself.
On June 6th, 1944, tens of thousands of young warriors left these shores by the sea and air to begin the invasion of Normandy and the liberation of Europe and the brutal Nazi occupation. It was a liberation like few people have seen before. Among them were more than 130,000 American and British brothers-in-arms. Through their valor and sacrifice, they secured our homelands and saved freedom for the world.
Tomorrow, Prime Minister May and I will attend a commemoration ceremony in Portsmouth — one of the key embarkation points for the invasion. More than one and a half million American service members were stationed right here in England in advance of the landings that summer. The bonds of friendship forged here and sealed in blood on those hallowed beaches will endure forever.
Our special relationship is grounded in common history, values, customs, culture, language, and laws. Our people believe in freedom and independence as a sacred birthright and cherished inheritance worth defending at any cost.
As the Prime Minister and I discussed in our meetings today and yesterday, the United States and the United Kingdom share many goals and priorities around the world.
I want to thank the people of the United Kingdom for their service and partnership in our campaign to defeat ISIS. As we announced a few months ago, ISIS’s territorial caliphate in Syria and Iraq has been completely obliterated — defeated.
The United Kingdom is also a key partner in NATO. The Prime Minister and I agree that our NATO Allies must increase their defense spending. We’ve both been working very hard toward that end. And we are very current, and some of them are not. We can’t allow that to happen. But I appreciate everything you’ve done in that regard.
We expect a growing number of nations to meet the minimum 2 percent of GDP requirement. To address today’s challenges, all members of the Alliance must fulfill their obligations. They have no choice. They must fulfill their obligation.
Among the pressing threats facing our nations is the development and spread of nuclear weapons. Perhaps that’s our greatest threat. The United States and the United Kingdom are determined to ensure that Iran never develops nuclear weapons, and stops supporting and engaging in terrorism. And I believe that will happen.
In protecting our nations, we also know that the border security is national security.
Today, the Prime Minister and I discussed our thriving economic relationship — both countries are doing very well — and participated in a roundtable with industry and business leaders — I can say, probably, the biggest business leaders anywhere in the world. Our nations have more than $1 trillion invested in each other’s economics.
The United Kingdom is America’s largest foreign investor and our largest European export market. That’s a lot of importance. As the UK makes preparations to exit the European Union, the United States is committed to a phenomenal trade deal between the U.S. and the UK. There is tremendous potential in that trade deal — I say, probably, two and even three times of what we’re doing right now. Tremendous potential.
Seventy-five years ago this Thursday, courageous Americans and British patriots set out from this island toward history’s most important battle.
They stormed forward out of ships and airplanes, risking everything to defend our people and to ensure that the United States and Britain would forever remain sovereign and forever remain free.
Following this press conference, Prime Minister May, Mr. May, the First Lady, my family, and I will visit the legendary Churchill War Rooms beneath the streets of London. I look forward to that.
In his famous speech on this day in June 1940, Prime Minister Churchill urged his countrymen to “defend our island, whatever the cost may be.”
As we mark this solemn anniversary of D-Day, we remember that the defense of our nations does not begin on the battlefield but within the heart of every patriot.
Today, let us renew our pledge, engraved at the American Cemetery in Normandy and inscribed by President Dwight Eisenhower in St. Paul’s Cathedral right here in London, that “the cause for which they died shall live.”
Prime Minister May, it’s been a true honor. I have greatly enjoyed working with you. You are a tremendous professional and a person that loves your country dearly. Thank you very much. Really an honor.
Thank you for the invitation to memorialize our fallen heroes and for your partnership in protecting and advancing the extraordinary alliance between the American and the British people. It’s the greatest alliance the world has ever known.
Thank you, Prime Minister. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER MAY: Thank you.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much.
PRIME MINISTER MAY: Thank you very much, Donald. (Applause.)
Thank you. Now we’re going to take two questions from the UK media and two questions from the American media. I’ll start with Beth Rigby.
Q Thank you. Thank you, Prime Minister, President Trump. Beth Rigby from Sky News. For you, President Trump, as you hold talks with the current Prime Minister, the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition has been addressing a protest rally against your visit in Trafalgar Square. He says he’s disappointed you attacked the London mayor, and he criticized your record on refugees. What do you have to say to him? And is this man someone you could do a trade deal with?
And to you, Prime Minister, do you think that Sadiq Khan is a “stone cold loser”? Thank you.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You’re talking about the Mayor of London. Is that who you said? Yes? Well, I think he’s been a — a not very good mayor, from what I understand. He’s done a poor job. Crime is up. A lot of problems. And I don’t think he should be criticizing a representative of the United States that can do so much good for the United Kingdom.
We talked about it before: He should be positive, not negative. He’s a negative force, not a positive force. And if you look at what he said, he hurts the people of this great country.
And I think he should actually focus on his job. It’d be a lot better if he did that. He could straighten out some of the problems that he has and probably some of the problems that he’s caused.
Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER MAY: Can I —
Q (Inaudible.) (Off-mic.)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Jeremy — yes. Yes, he wanted to meet with me and I told him no.
Q (Inaudible.) (Off-mic.)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes.
Q (Inaudible.) (Off-mic.)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I don’t know Jeremy Corbyn. Never met him. Never spoke to him. He wanted to meet today or tomorrow, and I decided that I would not do that. I think that he is — from where I come from — somewhat of a negative force. I think that the people should look to do things correctly as opposed to criticize. I really don’t like critics as much as I like and respect people that get things done. So I’ve decided not to meet.
As far as the protests, I have to tell you, because I commented on it yesterday: We left the Prime Minister, the Queen, the Royal Family — there were thousands of people on the streets cheering. And even coming over today, there were thousands of people cheering. And then I heard that there were protests. I said, “Where are the protests? I don’t see any protests.”
I did see a small protest today when I came — very small. So a lot of it is fake news, I hate to say. But you saw the people waving the American flag, waving your flag; it was tremendous spirit and love. There was great love. It was an alliance. And I didn’t see the protestors until just a little while ago, and it was a very, very small group of people, put in for political reasons. So it was fake news. Thank you.
PRIME MINISTER MAY: And I would say to both the Mayor of London and to Jeremy Corbyn: The discussions that we have had today are about the future of this most important relationship between the U.S. and the UK.
As the President described it: the greatest alliance the world has seen. It is this deep, special relationship and partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom that ensures our safety and security, and the safety and security of others around the world, too. And it is this relationship that helps to ensure there are jobs that employ people here in the UK and in the United States that underpins our prosperity and our future. That is a relationship we should cherish. It is a relationship we should build on. It is a relationship we should be proud of.
Mr. President, would you like to —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s very big, and this really is a very big and important alliance. And I think people should act positively toward it because it means so much for both countries. It means so much and it’s been so good.
Steve Holland, yes. Go ahead, Steve.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Is that on? There. What is your current view on Brexit, sir? Should Britain leave the European Union if there is no agreement by October 31st?
And for the Prime Minister: What would be the ramifications for the UK if there is not a deal?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I don’t like to take positions in things that I’m not, you know, really — I understand the issue very well. I really predicted what was going to happen. Some of you remember that prediction. It was a strong prediction, made at a certain location, on a development we were opening the day before it happened. And I thought it was going to happen because of immigration more than anything else, but probably it happens for a lot of reasons.
But I would say, yeah, I would think that it will happen and it probably should happen. This is a great, great country and it wants its own identity. It wants to have its own borders. It wants to run its own affairs. This is a very, very special place. And I think it deserves a special place. And I thought maybe for that reason — and for others — but that reason, it was going to happen.
Yeah, I think it will happen, and I believe the Prime Minister has brought it to a very good point where something will take place in the not-too-distant future. I think she’s done a very good job.
I believe it would be good for the country. Yes.
PRIME MINISTER MAY: And from my point of view, I believe it is important for us to deliver Brexit. We gave that choice to the British people. Parliament overwhelmingly gave the choice to the British people. We should now deliver on that choice. I continue to believe that, actually, it’s in the best interests of the UK to leave the European Union in an orderly way with a deal. I think we have a good deal. Sadly, the Labour Party and other MPs have, so far, stopped us from delivering Brexit and that deal.
But we will — but, obviously, this is an issue that is going to continue here in the UK. I think the important thing is we deliver Brexit. And once we’re out of the European Union, we will be able to do what we’ve been talking about today and develop not just that free trade agreement, but a broader economic partnership into the future.
Q If I could just follow up on a related matter: Mr. President, are you prepared to impose limits on intelligence sharing with Britain if they do not put in place some restrictions on Huawei?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, because we’re going to have absolutely an agreement on Huawei and everything else. We have an incredible intelligence relationship and we will be able to work out any differences. I think we’re not going to have it. We did discuss it. I see absolutely no limitations. We’ve never had limitations. This is a truly great ally and partner, and we’ll have no problem with that. Okay?
PRIME MINISTER MAY: Francis.
Q Mr. President, Francis Elliott from the Times. Do you agree with your ambassador that the entire economy needs to be on the table in a future trade talk — trade deal, including the NHS?
And, Prime Minister, are you tempted to take the Prime Minister up — take the President up on his word and stick around for a bit until the trade deal is done?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think we’re going to have a great trade deal, yes. I think we’re going to have a great and very comprehensive trade deal —
Q With the NHS? With the NHS? Should the NHS be on the table, sir?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I can’t hear him. What?
Q The Health Service. Should the Health Service?
PRIME MINISTER MAY: It’s a question about the National Health Service. He says, “Should the National Health Service be on the table?”
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Look, I think everything with a trade deal is on the table. When you — when you’re dealing in trade, everything is on the table — so, NHS or anything else. There are a lot — a lot more than that. But everything will be on the table, absolutely. Okay.
PRIME MINISTER MAY: But the point about making trade deals is, of course, that both sides negotiate and come to an agreement about what should or should not be in that trade deal for the future.
And as regards to your second question, Francis: Nice try, but no. (Laughter.) Look, I’m a woman of my word.
Mr. President, would you like to —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: John, please.
Q Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, domestically, in recent days, Mexico has stepped up apprehensions and deportations of Central American migrants.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s good.
Q This could possibly be in response to your threat of tariffs. Has Mexico —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Not “possibly be.”
Q Has Mexico done enough to avoid tariffs, which will be imposed in some six days from now? And —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, we haven’t started yet.
Q But the threat is out there?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, the threat is out there, but we haven’t really started yet. No, this will take effect next week — the 5 percent.
Q And what do you think of Republicans who say that they make take action to block you imposing those tariffs?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, I don’t think they will do that. I think if they do, it’s foolish. There’s nothing more important than borders. I’ve had tremendous Republican support. I have a 90 percent — 94 percent approval rating, as of this morning, in the Republican Party. That’s an all-time record. Can you believe that? Isn’t that something? I love records. But we have a 94 percent approval rating in the Republican Party.
I want to see security at our border. I’m going to see great trade. I’m going to see a lot of things happening. And that is happening.
And as you know, Mexico called. They want to meet. They’re going to meet on Wednesday. Secretary Pompeo is going to be at the meeting, along with a few others that are very good at this. And we are going to see if we can do something.
But I think it’s more likely that the tariffs go on. And we’ll probably be talking during the time that the tariffs are on and they’re going to be paid. And if they don’t step up and give us security for our nation — look, millions of people are flowing through Mexico. That’s unacceptable. Millions and millions of people are coming right through Mexico. It’s a 2,000-mile journey. And they’re coming up to our border.
And our Border Patrol, which is incredible — they’re apprehending them, but our laws are bad because the Democrats don’t want to pass laws that could be passed in 15 minutes, that could be passed quickly. In one day, it could change.
But even beyond the laws, Mexico shouldn’t allow millions of people to try and enter our country. And they could stop it very quickly, and I think they will. And if they won’t, we’re going to put tariffs on. And every month, those tariffs go from 5 percent, to 10 percent, to 15 percent, to 20, and then to 25 percent. And what will happen then is all of those companies that have left our country and gone to Mexico are going to be coming back to us. And that’s okay. That’s okay.
But I think Mexico will step up and do what they should have been done. And I don’t want to hear that Mexico is run by the cartels and the drug lords and the coyotes. I don’t want to hear about that. A lot of people are saying that. Mexico has something to prove. But I don’t want to hear that they’re run by the cartels. You understand. You report on it all the time. A lot of people do. That would be a terrible thing.
Mexico should step up and stop this onslaught, this invasion into our country, John.
Q Prime Minister May, you tried three times to get a deal on Brexit. At this point, do you believe that a deal on Brexit is possible, or is this a Gordian knot? President Trump says that you didn’t take his advice in terms of negotiation. Should you have? Would that have made a difference?
And, President Trump, if I could ask a follow-up: You had a conversation with Boris Johnson. Could we ask what you spoke about? And will you meet with Michael Gove today?
PRIME MINISTER MAY: Well, first of all, on the first issue, as I said in answer to an earlier question, I still believe — I personally believe that it is in the best interest of the UK to leave the European Union with a deal. I believe there is a good deal on the table. Obviously, it will be for whoever succeeds me as Prime Minister to take this issue forward.
What is paramount, I believe, is delivering on Brexit for the British people. And I seem to remember the President suggested that I sued the European Union, which we didn’t do. We went into negotiations and we came out with a good deal.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah. That’s not such a — I would have sued, but that’s okay. (Laughter.) I would have sued and settled, maybe. But you never know. She’s probably a better negotiator than I am (inaudible).
But you know what? She has got it, in a sense, John. That deal is teed up. I think that deal is really teed up. I think they have to do something. And perhaps you won’t be given the credit that you deserve if they do something, but I think you deserve a lot of credit. I really do. I think you deserve a lot of credit. Okay?
Yes, John?
Q And Boris Johnson and Michael Gove?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, I know Boris. I like him. I’ve liked him for a long time. He’s — I think he’d do a very good job. I know Jeremy. I think he’d do a very good job. I don’t know Michael. But would he do a good job — Jeremy? Tell me. (Laughter.)
Okay?
PRIME MINISTER MAY: Okay.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
The U.K. is five hours ahead of New York EST. Today President Trump will travel to St. James Palace for a meeting between U.S. and U.K. business leaders (hosted by PM Theresa May). Then President Trump will meet back up with First Lady Melania at #10 Downing Street for a political meeting between the President and Prime Minister May; with a joint press conference scheduled for 1:45pm BST / 8:45am EST.
Later in the evening President Trump and First Lady Melania will host a dinner at the U.S. Ambassador residence (Winfield House) attended by HRH The Prince of Wales and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall.
9:10am BST / 4:10am EST THE PRESIDENT departs Winfield House (U.S. Ambassador Woody Johnson Residence) Landing Zone en route Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
9:20am BST / 4:20am EST THE PRESIDENT arrives Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
9:30am BST / 4:30am EST THE PRESIDENT departs Buckingham Palace Landing Zone en route St. James’s Palace, London, United Kingdom
9:40am BST / 4:40am EST THE PRESIDENT arrives at St. James’s Palace, London, United Kingdom
9:45am BST / 4:45am EST THE PRESIDENT participates in a business round table, London, United Kingdom
11:10am BST / 6:10am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart St. James’s Palace en route No. 10 Downing Street, London, United Kingdom
11:20am BST / 6:20am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive No. 10 Downing Street, London, United Kingdom
11:25am BST / 6:25am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a greeting with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, London, United Kingdom
11:40am BST / 6:40am EST THE PRESIDENT participates in a expanded bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, London, United Kingdom
12:25pm BST / 7:25am EST THE PRESIDENT participates in a working lunch with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, London, United Kingdom
1:45pm BST / 8:45am EST THE PRESIDENT participates in a press conference with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, London, United Kingdom
2:25pm BST / 9:25am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a tour of the Churchill War Rooms, London, United Kingdom
3:20pm BST / 10:20am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Churchill War Rooms en route Buckingham Palace Landing Zone
London, United Kingdom
3:30pm BST / 10:30am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive Buckingham Palace Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
3:40pm BST / 10:40am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart Buckingham Palace Landing Zone en route Winfield House Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
3:50pm BST / 10:50am EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY arrive Winfield House Landing Zone, London, United Kingdom
7:45pm BST / 2:45pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a greeting with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
8:10pm BST / 3:10pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a Pre-Reciprocal Dinner Reception with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
8:20pm BST / 3:20pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a presentation of guest with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
8:35pm BST / 3:35pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in a Reciprocal Dinner with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
9:50pm BST / 4:50pm EST THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY participate in the guest book signing with H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and H.R.H. The Duchess of Cornwall, London, United Kingdom
My family and I are delighted to welcome President @realDonaldTrump and @FLOTUS to London for the State Visit – a special few days ahead for the U.S.-UK relationship!
QUESTION: You said you are worried about what comes after Trump you mean after the next four years right? There is no way Trump can lose this election right?
Thank You
S
ANSWER: My concern is not a specific time, but who could possibly replace him as a person. There is nobody I know of who would step up against the bureaucracy. This means that the stronger likelihood would be a career politician. I fear that the public discontent will not accept that, and then we have this intense battle going on between left and right.
Even a Trump victory in 2020 will still result in civil unrest or if he were to lose (which the system does not favor just yet) we will see the same result. It just appears that in 2020 into 2022, no one will accept whoever wins.
After a court filing revealed how Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller carefully edited the telephone message by John Dowd to Michael Flynn’s attorney, Dowd points out the motives of Weissmann and Mueller was to create a fraudulent report.
Backstory Below
In the Michael Flynn sentencing phase Judge Emmet Sullivan requested the Mueller prosecution team provide records related to the case. [Backstory Here]
Among other evidence, the judge ordered the government to file on the public docket “the transcript of the voicemail recording” from President Trump’s attorney John Dowd to Michael Flynn. The transcript of that voicemail recording was cited in the Mueller report as evidence that team Trump was trying to obstruct justice by shaping witness testimony.
Last Friday the Mueller team released the transcript of the call (full pdf below). However, as originally noticed by RosieMemos the released transcript clearly shows the Mueller team selectively edited the transcript to weaponized their portrayal of the contact.
Compare the actual transcript [Source] to the Mueller Report [source]:
Notice how Mueller leaves out (via edits) the context of the call, and the important qualifier: “without you having to give up any confidential information.” Clearly Dowd does not want to interfere in Flynn’s cooperation with the special counsel, which is opposite to the twisted claim presented by Weissmann and Mueller’s report.
After attorney Techno Fog shared the new information with Mr. Dowd, Trump’s former attorney provided the following reply:
Counsel of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett appears on CNBC to discuss his decision to leave the White House; the purposeful importance of President Trump’s tariff threat on Mexican imports; and why overall trade reform is important.
.
When Kevin Hassett notes best models without interest rates, and the perplexing discussion centers the appearance of two distinct economies, they are talking ABOUT THIS. MAGAnomics is what happens in “the space between” Wall St and Main St.
The hypocrisy and ideology of the Mexican position would indicate the tariffs are certain to take place. Factually, after Mexico has made their “red line” position clear, one could argue there’s no reason to go through the graduated timeline; the U.S. might as well just start applying the full 25% tariff amount on June 10th.
WASHINGTON/MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico said on Monday it would reject a U.S. idea to take in all Central American asylum seekers if it is raised at talks this week with the Trump administration, which has threatened to impose tariffs if Mexico does not crack down on illegal immigration.
[…] Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said the country was committed to continuing to work to keep migrants from Central America from reaching the U.S. border.
He said, however, that a proposal favored by some U.S. officials to designate Mexico a “safe third country,” which would force Central Americans seeking asylum in the United States to apply for it instead in Mexico, was not an option.
“An agreement about a safe third country would not be acceptable for Mexico,” Ebrard told reporters in Washington. “They have not yet proposed it to me. But it would not be acceptable and they know it.”
[…] Mexican Agriculture Minister Victor Villalobos said in a statement the proposed tariffs would cause economic damage to the agriculture sector of $117 million a month in both countries. He did not specify at what level of tariffs that damage would occur.
[…] Mexican trade officials said last week that they would retaliate if the tariffs were imposed, although they did not provide details on what the response would be.
U.S.-based Mexican-themed fast-food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc estimated a $15 million hit from the proposed tariffs, and said it could cover that by raising its burrito prices by around 5 cents.
U.S. business groups have opposed the tariff plan and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is looking at ways to challenge it, including legal options.
[…] The Mexican economy, which is heavily reliant on exports to the United States, shrank in the first quarter and would reel under U.S. levies that would start at 5% but could reach as high as 25% this year under Trump’s plan.
Goldman Sachs economists gave a 70% chance of the tariffs on Mexican imports coming into effect at 5% on June 10.
As a proportion of Mexico’s total U.S. exports in 2018 – $347 billion, according to U.S. data – a 5% tariff implies costs of roughly $1 billion between June 10 and 30. (read more)
According to another report: “U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said he told Mexican Economy Secretary Graciela Marquez in a meeting on Monday that Mexico must do more to help the United States address illegal immigration.” The good thing is Wilbur Ross has been activated.
The U.S. economy is $20 trillion. If Mexican imports are $347 billion total, that’s around 2% of our total economy. Yeah, worst case scenario a burrito goes up a nickel… De nada.
Here’s what Mexico will really do. As they previously said, if Trump goes ahead with a full immigration confrontation, Mexico will try to flood the U.S. with illegal aliens and drugs.
Blackmail is the reality of the unspoken Mexican approach at diplomacy.
♦ In August of 2017 President Trump and Commerce Secretary Ross were discussing their trade efforts within NAFTA and renegotiation with Mexico/Canada on a trilateral basis. However, the U.S. administration said if it doesn’t work, they’d scrap the 3-way NAFTA deal and go one-on-one with individual bilateral agreements. In response, Mexican Economic Minister Ildefonso Guajardo threatened to flood the U.S. with South American illegal aliens, criminals and gang members as leverage:
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico could pull back on cooperation in migration and security matters if the United States walks away from talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Mexican economy minister said in a newspaper report published on Thursday.
“If they do not treat [us] well commercially, they should not expect us to treat them well by containing the migration that comes from other regions of the world and crosses Mexico,” Guajardo said. “Or they should not expect to be treated well in collaboration with security issues in the region.” (LINK)
However, Mexican Minister Ildefonso Guarjardo’s threat was mild compared to a threat in January 2017, when another Mexican official promised to flood the U.S. with South American drugs and gang violence:
♦ In a stunning segment on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN broadcast January 29th, 2017, Mexico’s former foreign minister, Jorge Castaneda, states the Mexican government was willing to counter U.S. President Donald Trump policy by unleashing drug cartels upon the U.S. border.
Watch, and more importantlyLISTEN, to his words at 02:10 below (Prompted):
This was the most politically explosive admission by the Mexican government in the past decade. Even Fareed Zakaria realized what was being threatened and quickly attempted to redirect the conversation.
Mr. Castaneda was openly admitting a willingness to promote drug trafficking. Additionally, Jorge Castaneda is so proud of the threat, he posted a video of the discussion on his own YouTube page.
With that political mindset at the forefront, President Trump might as well just initiate the full 25%; call up the military; and tighten all border-crossing entry points. Then watch what happens….
Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats are structuring a contempt vote against U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr for next week, June 11th. As part of the current construct, the Lawfare alliance of legal advisers and staff are writing specific language into the vote that will automatically allow more contempt votes against the Trump administration without hearings.
Their collective goal is to use a legislative vote to open a civil lawsuit against Bill Barr for his failure to deliver the fully unredacted Mueller report to them. Additionally, the contempt vote will be written so that any other arbitrary Trump administration official can also be held in contempt, without a committee vote, and thereby initiate a civil lawsuit against the executive officer that will have to be defended in court.
WASHINGTON DC – The House will vote next week to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller’s fully unredacted report and underlying evidence, according to multiple Democratic sources.
The resolution would clear the way for the House Judiciary Committee to take Barr to court to enforce its subpoena and settle the matter legally — a crucial step for Democrats seeking to accelerate their obstruction of justice investigation against President Donald Trump.
The vote, which will take place on June 11, will also include broad authority for congressional committees to take legal action against the Trump administration in future subpoena fights, the Democratic sources say. Democrats are still discussing whether to include former White House counsel Don McGahn in the resolution. (read more)
Pelosi and the Lawfare group are avoiding a criminal contempt process because that would require the DOJ to participate. Instead lawyers working on behalf of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, HPSCI Chairman Schiff, and/or White House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings will sue the Trump administration in civil court.
If they can win a civil award (they will carefully select the judge) Pelosi and Nadler can start issuing civil fines for contempt against individual cabinet members. Adam Schiff has previously stated his recommended target amount would be $25,000 per day/per person.
Now go back to December 2018 and the specific rule changes that Pelosi put in place, and you’ll see how this was planned out long ago. This lawfare approach, including every aspect of the Mueller probe and the delivery of the Weissmann report therein, is all part of one carefully planned continuum of activity. By design at the end of their plan is the official impeachment investigation.
Washington, D.C. –The House Judiciary Committee will continue hearings focused on the alleged crimes and other misconduct laid out in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. The next hearing entitled “Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other Crimes” will take place on June 10th. The hearing will feature former White House Counsel John Dean as well as former U.S. Attorneys and legal experts. The Committee also plans to consider targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters. (read more)
See how it is all sequenced, timed and connected?
This has been their plan all along. Pelosi’s poo-pooing of impeachment was always a head-fake to the compliant media, designed to fabricate a narrative around unlikely impeachment, and throw people off the scent of a plan that was designed even before the mid-term election of 2018.
[Trust me, Pelosi’s approach to hide their plan works. Look at how many people criticized CTH warnings that Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Cummings were planning this out all along.]
After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the “impeachment” strategy, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff. Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (link), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal defense attorney Barry Berke (link), all are within the Lawfare network.
[IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi has selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letterto be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about new powers granted to the House Counsel.]
The Pelosi House rules clearly present the outline for an impeachment calendar as directed by changes to the oversight committees. Additionally, there is a myriad of new processes which appear to have been developed through the Lawfare alliance. Here’s some of the overview (full pdf below):
Pelosi sets up a new, much narrower, oversight priority for Chairman Elijah Cummings; specifically to tailor oversight to the White House and President Donald Trump. Additionally we see the outlined time-schedule for hearings.
In subsection “k” the “clarification” is the narrowing of Elijah Cummings focus. “Oversight Over the Executive Office of the President“. This sets up the system for Cummings to target President Trump, his family, and all members of the executive branch as they relate to specific White House functions.
The Pelosi rules tell Chairman Cummings to deliver his schedule for his investigation(s) to the House by April 15th, 2019. Thereafter the hearing sessions will commence. The objective of those hearings is House impeachment of the President; so now we know the general timeline the Democrats plan to follow.
♦ To help achieve that objective on Page #3 Pelosi changed the rules on depositions:
In previous oversight hearings depositions of witnesses could not be conducted by counsel unless minority members were also present. Pelosi removes that rule allowing an expanded team of House lawyers to question anyone regardless of whether there is a republican present to defend/protect the interests of the witness or target.
Additionally, in the event Republicans develop immediate defensive plans to push back against the weaponization of these oversight committees, Pelosi gives her Chairs 60 days to make up the rules for their committees so they can deflect any defenses.
♦ Following with the investigative plans for impeachment; and in conjunction with all new powers granted to a massively expanded group of House lawyers with new and expanded power; page #7 has specific rules to benefit HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff:
HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff can now, autonomously, demand and instruct depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the House Intelligence Committee does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts for any of the targets, or have any republican members present therein. [Schiff granted far more power than Nunes.]
♦ Page #9 is the beginning of a very interesting new power being granted to an expanded office of House Legal Counsel:
This is only the first part of this Pelosi rule. This part speaks to coordination with Lawfare and similar activist groups outside government. The House will now defend Obamacare, and all other possible constructs, with a legal team – regardless of what the DOJ might be doing on the same legal matter. In essence, a mini-legislative DOJ branch that will fight the U.S. Dept of Justice if needed. (more on this in another section).
♦ Page #13 is the most interesting, and ties back to the Page #9 rule.
Here Speaker Pelosi sets up an internal House division of lawyers, paid with taxpayer funds, to defend Obamacare against any adverse action. In essence Pelosi is setting up her own Legislative Branch division of justice, to fight against the Executive Branch U.S. Department of Justice if needed.
The primary issue surrounds defending Obamacare from possible legal removal. However, it doesn’t take a deep political thinker to see where this approach ends up. It would be naive to think the Lawfare group (Benjamin Wittes) did not help create this new internal legal system.
Normally/traditionally House Counsel represents the interests of the entire Legislative Branch on any issue that might surface. However, Pelosi is setting up a legal activist agency within the House Counsel that will specifically “advocate” for Democrat priorities, against the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, and use taxpayer funds to finance the scheme.
Speaker Pelosi is creating her own mini DOJ (the Lawfare alliance) inside the legislative branch. And, with additional investigative powers granted to House committees, we might even see a mini-FBI units, dispatched to conduct investigations, accountable only to speaker Pelosi. Heck, considering congress already has subpoena power, there’s no telling where this might end.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 