You can call it a soft-coup, or you can call it politicization of the DOJ and FBI, but the end result is the same – the intentional effort to manipulate, influence, and ultimately subvert an election for the presidency of the United States.  ~SD

Appearing on Life, Liberty and Levin, Mr. Dan Bongino and Mr. Joe diGenova have an in-depth conversation about ongoing issues with the Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigation, and the precipitating events/action within the Obama Intel Community:

.

More *’nuther stuff* below.

Additionally, I have mentioned my suspicions on Twitter, so I might as well present a theory here. I believe the issues within the DOJ response letter to HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes relate to Nunes asking a question about the FISA Court, and likely Judge Rudolph Contreras specifically.

Please understand this is pure speculation. It is a hypothesis based on a knowledge of the underlying issues and prior questions within the larger topic; however, it is simply speculation.

For the following reasons:

First, in the Fox News interview Chairman Nunes specifically states the foundation of his inquiry relates to the FISA court process; and the small number of people who have actual oversight upon the intelligence apparatus therein. This “small congressional group” reference is the oversight Gang of Eight.

Second, Chairman Nunes specifically says he sent a “classified letter” to the DOJ two weeks ago. There are only a few *topic issues* which are classified by their very nature. The FISA Court is one of those issues. Everything relating to the FISA Court is classified. A letter of inquiry about an issue, or justice, within the FISA court would most certainly be classified.

Third, in the DOJ response letter to Devin Nunes there is a line: “[the executive branch] is not in a position to provide information about a specific individual.” Which would indicate Nunes’ question was targeted to a particular person.

Fourth, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had text message conversation about FISA Court Justice Rudolph Contreras. Apparently Peter Strzok knew Contreras. Contreras was the presiding judge in the Flynn plea. Contreras “was recused” from the Flynn case six days after he presided over the initial guilty plea. There has always been a question, unanswered by an incurious media, about whether Contreras was the FISA Judge who signed off on the skety FISA warrant used against Carter Page and the Trump campaign.

Fifth, Inspector General Michael Horowitz is also looking at the FISA application and how the FBI and DOJ assembled therein.  On March 28th, 2018, Horowitz added an investigation of the troubling FISA issues to an already full investigative portfolio.  The DOJ-OIG would not take on that issue, if there wasn’t something that needed a non-political review.

Sixth, FBI Agent Peter Strzok was instrumental in the sketchy FISA application content; Agent Peter Strzok is still employed within the FBI, likely cooperating.  That provides another reason for the DOJ to push away an inquiry from Devin Nunes.

Thus, in summary, it seems reasonable to consider that Chairman Nunes could have been inquiring of the DOJ: Who was the FISA judge who approved the sketchy application using the ‘Clinton-Steele Dossier’?

And by extension of the responsive letter the DOJ would not yet want to answer that line of questioning for the reasons outlined within the reply.  [And also because IG Horowitz is looking into these really important issues.]

All of the outlined DOJ issues and concerns, listed within the response letter (below), would check-off a response-list if the inquiry was about ¹Judge Rudolph Contreras and the FISA Court.

[¹However, there is a small number of other topics that also would trigger a similar letter: ex. inquiry about the U.K. GCHQ and involvement by Robert Hannigan – though the CIA or ODNI would be the more likely destination from Nunes inquiry for that approach.]

Again, listen carefully to how Devin Nunes discusses the “classified letter” he sent  approximately two weeks ago.

.

Again, it’s just a theory; a possibility.  However, such issues also carry big ramifications.

Reuters weekly polling reflected an upswing in support for President Donald Trump.  Which immediately caused them to issue an apology along with the release.

Washington, DC – The Reuters/Ipsos Core Political poll has a significant realignment this week across a number of metrics. Most pronounced is President Trump’s approval rating which currently sits at 48% with all Americans. His number with registered voters is essentially the same at 49%. Corresponding with Trump’s stronger approval rating, evaluations of his job performance across the board are stronger this week from 57% approving of his handling of the economy (read more)

(Full Poll Results Here)

Earlier today President Trump traveled to Cleveland, Ohio to deliver remarks at a business and community tax reform roundtable event.  President Trump begins his remarks by noting the importance of shifting focus within the trade discussion to bring a greater balance to the U.S. economy via America-First principles.

Three decades of economic policies benefiting Wall Street are now shifted to begin a new era where economic policies benefit Main Street.  That’s MAGAnomics in shorthand.

President Trump stopped to talk to the press corps en route to the NRA convention speech in Texas.  The president hit on a wide range of current topics:

.

Additional comments at Joint Base Andrews, with Chief of Staff John Kelly.

It was originally reported on April 30th, 2018, that Kim Jong-un had moved three U.S. nationals (w/ South Korean ancestry) from labor camps to Pyongyang where they were undergoing medical treatment, rehabilitation and rest in advance of a plan to be released.

Those initial reports are now being confirmed by alternate media sources.  The original report from inside the DPRK stated they were “reportedly being prepared to be released to US authorities either prior to or on the day of the US-North Korea summit”; and the captives were being debriefed (“coached” or “indoctrinated”) to tell authorities their human rights were not violated during their stay in the DPRK.

(left to right) Kim Dong Chul, Kim Sang Duk, Kim Hak Soon

Kim Dong Chul, Kim Sang Duk, Kim Hak Soon are the names of the three hostages being released.  Two of the captives, Hak-Soon and Sang Duk, belong to the Pyongyang Univ of Science & Technology and were taken in in Apr & May 2017: they’ve been held for a year. The third, Kim Dong Chul, is an ordained minister taken in 2015 when he was commuting to Rason from China and and has been serving a 10-year sentence on espionage charges.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo specifically requested their release while visiting Pyongyang on Easter weekend. The three are US citizens with Korean heritage.  National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Fox News Sunday that North Korea could show its sincerity by releasing US hostages prior to the summit.

In March of this year Sweden was initially playing a large role and helping negotiate the terms of the North-South Korea summit as well as the release of three Americans held captive in North Korea.

“We believe that Mr. Trump can take them back on the day of the U.S.-North Korea summit, or he can send an envoy to take them back to the U.S. before the summit,” said Choi Sung-ryong, an activist pursuing release of North Korea’s political prisoners.

Yesterday Texas and six other states filed a lawsuit against the the Trump administration over the Presidents’ failure to terminate DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals); an Obama-era program created through ‘executive action’ that allowed work permits and legal status for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Brownsville on Tuesday; asking the court to rule on whether President Obama’s 2012 decision to grant deportation protections and two-year work authorizations to young undocumented immigrants — without congressional approval — was lawful.

A similar program in 2014 known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) was ruled unconstitutional in 2016.   However, the first executive action, ‘the DACA policy’, has never been challenged in court.

Today, a judge was assigned by random draw for the DACA case, and universal karma has come full circle with the outcome.  Federal Judge Andrew Hanen was drawn as the presiding judge for the DACA challenge.

It cannot be overstated how significantly damaging that judicial draw is to the activist groups who are trying to support the Obama Executive Action.  Judge Andrew Hanen was the original judge on the 2015 DAPA challenge.

Not only was Andrew Hanen the federal judge in the prior DAPA challenge, but Hanen was specifically furious at the gross misconduct by the Obama DOJ during the prior legal proceedings.  Hanen wasn’t a little bit angry at the DOJ, he was FURIOUS (see here).

During the 2015/2016 DAPA proceedings, the DOJ lied -numerous times- to Hanen’s court; and at the conclusion of the SCOTUS ruling (supporting the Hanen rulings), Judge Hanen demanded that all of the DOJ lawyers attend ethics classes – and lambasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch for allowing such gross ethical misconduct.

Additionally, Judge Hanen is an incredibly brilliant judge when it comes to writing opinions that cannot be rebuked by appellate courts or even SCOTUS.  In the 2015 DAPA case Hanen specifically waited to see how a Mississippi appeals court ruled on a tangential aspect to his case before writing his ruling.  As a result the 5th CCA could not overrule his decision.  –BACKSTORY HERE–

Texas -vs- DACA drawing Judge Hanen also means the immigration activists in congress will now have to work on legislating a solution.  Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer scored a big loss today:

WASHINGTON –  Texas has already caught its first break in its new lawsuit to stop the Obama-era DACA program, after the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen.

A Republican appointee to the bench, Judge Hanen has already ruled against a similar deportation amnesty in 2015. And during that case he expressed skepticism about DACA itself, saying it seemed to stray beyond the bounds of discretion then-President Obama had claimed in setting up the program.

Judge Hanen, whose courtroom is in southern Texas, was one of the first to spot to surge of illegal immigrant children headed to the border in 2013 — a surge which crested in 2014 with the UAC wave that overwhelmed the Obama administration, and whose repercussions are still being felt today with the latest caravan of illegal immigrants.

He will now oversee the latest in an ever-expanding and complicated legal battle over DACA, which Mr. Obama created in 2012 to grant tentative legal status to illegal immigrant “Dreamers.” DACA was controversial from the start, and President Trump attempted to phase it out.  (read more)