Former convention delegate manager Paul Manafort, entered into a plea deal today with Special Counsel Robert Mueller for issues related to his lobbying firm and FARA registry violations.  The plea has nothing to do with candidate Trump, president-elect Trump, or President Trump.  Manafort agrees to cooperate with federal prosecutors regarding other issues surrounding his lobbying network and affiliates.

Rather than read media opinion of the plea agreement HERE IS THE PLEA.  You can read it.  Earlier tonight Rudy Giuliani appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity to discuss:

According to a CBC article citing a “Senior Canadian Official”, the Trudeau government is completely “comfortable” missing an October 1st deadline to join the U.S-Mexico trade alliance:

…”The source who spoke to CBC News on background, due to the sensitivity of the talks, said the external political pressure “is not a good enough reason,” for Canada to be forced into a fast finish.”… (more)

This statement follows a series of actions by Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau which highlights their intent to resist any trade agreement while counting on domestic politics to deliver electoral forgiveness.  Indeed for all intents and purposes it would appear Justin and Chrystia are willing to damage their economy for political benefit.

Meanwhile the Mexican government is affirming their intent to go forward with a bilateral trade deal if needed because the U.S-Mexico joint agreement is in their best interests.  According to Mexico’s Chief Negotiator, Kenneth Smith-Ramos:

“We hope the U.S. and Canada will conclude their bilateral negotiation shortly. If that is not possible we are ready to advance bilaterally with the U.S … the agreement in principle that we closed with the U.S. is positive for Mexico because it preserves free trade and modernizes our trade agreement …”

A year ago it seemed almost impossible to see an agreement with Mexico that would facilitate the interests of both countries.  However, with the successful election of Mexican President Lopez-Obrador, a remarkable populist shift dramatically changed the landscape within the Mexican economic outlook and policy.

Outgoing Mexican President Peña Nieto, structured his economic policy around accepting multinational corporate investment and the parasitic outcomes at follow.  Exfiltration of wealth and exploitation of resources/labor are an outcropping of predatory multinational trade exploitation and globalism.

Retention of the multinational schemes generally leads to massive corruption.  In the U.S. this corruption is known as “lobbying”, in Mexico the process is called ‘bribery’; however, the activity is the same.

The incoming Mexican President, Lopez-Obrador (AMLO), is more of an economic nationalist; and quite remarkably his economic outlook, at least as his team has described the objectives so far, is quite Trumpian.  You might even say: “Make Mexico Great Again”.

Both U.S. President Trump and Mexican President-elect AMLO have similar outlooks toward predatory multinational corporations and economic exploitation.  If you think about how Mexico was used by the multinationals in the past twenty years; and then think about a very real possibility of a U.S President and Mexican President having an economic friendship; well,… holy cats, those multinationals could be remarkably nervous right now.

AMLO supports labor and has an agenda to create a strong middle-class.  President Trump supports labor, and his economic agenda is laser focused on a strong middle-class.  AMLO views Wall Street multinationals as predatory by disposition.  President Trump views those same multinationals as tending toward predatory behavior and in need of correction for their participation in the erosion of the American middle-class.   AMLO is a strong Mexican Nationalist.  President Trump is a strong American Nationalist.

As long as AMLO stays away from the authoritarian tendencies of power, ie. government ownership of private industry; surprisingly he and President Trump are likely to have a great deal more in common than most would think.   Both populists; both nationalists.

This explains why the framework of the U.S-Mexico trade agreement was possible to construct.  Right now both teams are filling in the details.

With AMLO and President Trump, Mexico and the U.S. have joint-interests in an economic trade bloc. President Trump and President Lopez-Obrador have common objectives; and with the economic approach outlined by AMLO toward using Mexico’s energy resources as leverage for expanded investment, the U.S. is well positioned to help.

President Trump is well positioned to assist the united trade bloc with expanded cross-border investment for economic development.  AMLO wants a higher standard of living for Mexican workers; President Trump wants greater parity between Mexican workers and their U.S. counterparts.  Heck, it was U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and USTR Robert Lighthizer who first proposed raising the Mexican minimum wage. Now both countries have agreed to an incremental Mexican minimum wage aspect of $16/hr within the auto sector.

Combining the wage aspect with the content and origination agreement, this has become a win/win for both AMLO and President Trump.  The multinationals within the auto-sector might not like it, but they’ve already put a massive amount of money into plant and manufacturing investment in their existing Mexican footprint. They have no choice.

In an generally overlooked outcome the nationalist interests of Mexico, specific to AMLO, are very close to alignment with the nationalist MAGA agenda of President Trump. Canada is the globalist oddball in this tri-fecta; which makes a trilateral deal almost impossible, and explains why Mexico is so willing to sign a bilateral agreement.

The U.S. economy is expanding at an unprecedented rate, and Mexico prepares to surf the MAGAnomic tsunami known as Donald Trump.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Before I get started, I want to let our fellow Americans know who are affected by Hurricane Florence that our prayers are with them. I understand there may well have been loss of life. Our heart goes out to them. Thanks, too, to all the first responders, military, civilian and the like, who are doing such good work. The federal government’s help is there, and we still continue to encourage every American who’s in the threatened path to listen to government officials and take heed to their words.

We’re also aware that there’s a typhoon in the Pacific Ocean right now which will take a toll on our friends in the Philippines. Our prayers are with them as well. State Department teams are ready to deliver the appropriate help to the region at the right time.

As you all know, on Wednesday, President Trump signed an executive order that made clear that our administration will not tolerate foreign interference in our democratic processes. Elections are the foundation of our democracy, and preserving their integrity is a matter of protecting sovereignty and American national security.

Foreign malicious actors have used information technology and social media to open new fronts in their efforts to undermine our democracy and our core institutions. These actors want to turn Americans against one another and convince us that our institutions, our ideals, are defective. But we are resolved to defeat these efforts and make clear that those who interfere with our liberties will pay a price.

In the last few years, Russia has been particularly aggressive in using its cyber capabilities, disinformation, and other covert means to attempt to sow instability in America. As this executive order makes clear, if Russia or any other foreign government or persons acting on their behalf interfere in the United States election, there will be swift and severe consequences.

The order provides for mandatory sanctions against foreign persons determined to have participated in interference in our elections. It also provides for additional measures that could be capable of devastating or interfering in our country’s economy. And if the government of that country authorized, directed, or sponsored, or supported election interference, we’re going to come after them.

The State Department will continue to work closely with other agencies to identify, expose – and expose foreign interference directed against American elections, no matter which entity initiated it. We’ll also continue to work with our partners around the world to stand against these threats to democracy wherever – and however – they rear their head.

I want to spend just a few minutes on this Friday afternoon talking about the team here at the State Department as well. Yesterday was a great day. It was a proud day. After Senate confirmation, President Trump conferred on four of our officers the position of Career Ambassador. Four of the State Department’s finest: Philip Goldberg, David Hale, my Under Secretary for Political Affairs Michele Sison, and Dan Smith.

This is the highest and most prestigious rank at the Foreign Service. They should all be very proud. I know I’m proud of them. The American people too should be proud of Phil, David, Michele, and Dan representing our country. They have all proven over many years of service that their outstanding diplomatic skills and leadership qualities are much needed and that they are delivering. They’re an inspiration, too. They’re great leaders. I congratulate them all on behalf of the all of my State Department colleagues.

It’s a good step towards strengthening the State Department’s leadership, something I have put at the top of my priority set in my first now several months here. I know that American diplomacy is most agile and most effective when we have our entire team in place. We need to have that senior leadership team empowered.

To that end, we do have some new leaders already making an impact. I mentioned David Hale. He’s my Under Secretary for Political Affairs. We also have Director of Policy Planning Kiron Skinner, who I have not mentioned at the podium before. She is highly distinguished academic, knowledgeable across a broad range of issues, and she is going to make sure the best foreign policy ideas rise to the top here at the State Department.

When I went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee I only made a couple of promises, but one of them was that I would get the team on the field. I knew that this was critical to strengthening the finest diplomatic corps in the world, and that’s what I said that day. I told them I’d do my part, that I would fill those positions, I would work with the President to get the individuals nominated, and we have made great progress getting confirmable positions filled, and we need that progress to continue.

The places where we still have gaps, places like Western Hemisphere, where we have challenges in Venezuela and Nicaragua and in Mexico and the Northern Triangle – important areas, we need a leader.

We haven’t had an under secretary for management here for quite some time. We need a confirmed person.

And in Near Eastern Affairs, a place that I have spent a great deal of my time in these first months, we are still looking for confirmation of our assistant secretary.

The list is long. I could go on. And I am just hopeful that we can finish the process so that both the Executive and Legislative Branch will have what it is I know each of us wants: a fully-fielded, capable team executing America’s foreign policy.

And with that, I am happy to take a few questions.

MS NAUERT: And I’ll call on you, just to help along. Matt Lee from the Associated Press to start. And you have one question each, please.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Hello, Matt.

QUESTION: Sure, hi. Good afternoon, sir. I was going to ask you about your interior decorating plans at your new house, but I thought I would instead start with something a little bit more mundane on the policy-wise. And that is that – on a policy question, that is that last night President Trump tweeted about one of your predecessors, Secretary Kerry, saying that he was having, quote/unquote, “illegal meetings” with Iran’s foreign minister in what others have said is an attempt to undermine or subvert or coach the Iranians on how to get around or avoid the new – your new harder, tougher policy on Iran.

I’m wondering if you share the President’s view that these meetings are illegal. And whether you do or not, if you have noticed in your attempts to get the Europeans and others, to get them on board with the new U.S. policy, and that efforts by Secretary Kerry, or any other former official for that matter, is interfering in or undermining your efforts.

SECRETARY POMPEO: So I’ll leave the legal determinations to others. But what Secretary Kerry has done is unseemly and unprecedented. This is a former secretary of state engaged with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, and according to him – right? You don’t have to take my word for it. He – these are his answers. He was talking to them. He was telling them to wait out this administration.

You can’t find precedent for this in U.S. history, and the secretary ought not – Secretary Kerry ought not to engage in that kind of behavior. It’s inconsistent with what foreign policy of the United States is, as directed by this President, and it is beyond inappropriate for him to be engaged in this. I remember, I saw him. I saw him in Munich at the Security Conference. He was there with – if I have my facts right, because I think I saw them all with my own eyes – Secretary Moniz and Wendy Sherman, the troika. And I am confident that they met with their troika counterparts, although one can perhaps ask Secretary Kerry if my recollection with respect to that is accurate.

I wasn’t in the meeting, but I am reasonably confident that he was not there in support of U.S. policy with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, who this week fired Katyusha rockets toward the United States embassy in Baghdad and took action against our consulate in Basra.

MS NAUERT: Next question.

QUESTION: Well, I just – has it had an impact? Has it hurt your efforts? That’s the – that’s just it, or —

SECRETARY POMPEO: I’ve —

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY POMPEO: I think you understand what I – which it is that former secretaries of state – all of them from either political party – ought not to be engaged in – actively undermining U.S. policy as a former secretary of state is literally unheard of.

MS NAUERT: Lesley Wroughton from Reuters.

QUESTION: Secretary, good afternoon. I wanted to reach out to you regarding Russia and China are suggesting at the Security Council that you should be – the United States and others should be easing sanctions against North Korea given progress in their eyes so far in the denuclearization process. What signs are you seeing that they are perhaps not sticking to the sanctions, and how is that damaging your efforts at trying to get a full denuclearization from North Korea?

SECRETARY POMPEO: So two things to say in this regard. One is that I spoke with Ambassador Haley about this earlier today. Russia has actively attempted to undermine the UN Security Council resolutions, the work of the 1718 Committee, the committee at the UN that evaluates compliance with sanctions, by attempting to change the language there. I hope that the 1718 Committee will do what it has historically done – remain independent and report on the facts as they know it and not allow a single country, in this case Russia, to draft language and have it inserted. I hope they will publish the original document that they intended to publish, which shows – it shows clear activities related to sanctions and sanctions violations. It’s important; it’s the date set that underlays not American sanctions but the world’s sanctions from the UN Security Council.

Your question was broader than just that. The United States is as committed as ever to continuing to enforce those UN Security Council resolutions. We believe they are central to President Trump’s efforts to convince Chairman Kim that full, final denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is necessary and that it needs to be done in a way that the world can see that there’s been this strategic change in Chairman Kim’s core understanding of how he will provide a better future for the North Korean people. He said it at the summit in Singapore and we are still continuing to have many conversations with the DPRK about how to effectuate achieving all the commitments that were made during the Singapore summit.

MS NAUERT: Elise, from CNN.

QUESTION: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes, ma’am.

QUESTION: On – by September 30th the administration has to give a determination or a decision to Congress about the levels of refugees that will be admitted into the U.S. for the next fiscal year, and there seems to be a debate or a discussion among some who are thinking of it as more of a national security issue and want to keep the levels consistent at a level around 45,000, while there are some that think it should be significantly lower, in the twenty thousands. I’m not sure if you want to give a specific amount, but can you talk to us about your thoughts about how you’re seeing the level of refugees that should be coming in in the near future?

SECRETARY POMPEO: So there will be an announcement soon. You – the date – the deadline is, in fact, this fiscal year and so I’m confident that the national security team will deliver the President’s recommendation. He’ll make his decision about the appropriate level. It is absolutely a national security decision and it is also worth everyone here remembering that this is the most generous of nations when it comes to accepting persons from outside of our country. I am – I’m incredibly proud not only of what we have done as a historical matter, but the way the Trump administration has dealt with this issue as well. I am confident that the decision that comes out of this issue with respect to refugees for next fiscal year, America will remain among the most generous nations with respect to taking persons from outside of our country. We always have and I fully expect that will continue.

MS NAUERT: Last question.

QUESTION: Can you say what your particular thoughts are in terms of numbers?

SECRETARY POMPEO: No, I share those thoughts with the President and then when we have a decision from him we’ll announce it. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Last question, Rich Edson from Fox News.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. Mr. Secretary, do you think that this effort that you were discussing with the JCPOA, do you think it goes beyond those you mentioned, Secretary Kerry and Wendy Sherman? Do you think there are other former administration officials who are advising the Europeans and the Iranians? And will the administration sanction members or the board members or the entity of SWIFT if they continue to process Iranian transactions?

SECRETARY POMPEO: So second question first. I don’t know the decision with respect to SWIFT in particular. There are still a number of decisions pending before the November 1st deadline – excuse me, November 4th deadline that we’ve got to make about waivers or potential waivers, and we’re working our way through each of those. But make no mistake about it, come November 4th there will be a fundamentally different set of rules with respect to anyone who deems it necessary to engage with – in economic activity with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It is a big, important day. You can see many countries already taking actions to move out of Iran, to discontinue doing business with them in advance of the November 4th deadline. They understand I think not only the seriousness of the U.S. sanctions but I think they’re also coming to see that this activity is supporting the exact kinds of malign activity that President Trump has been talking about since the first day he took office, whether it’s providing missiles that the Houthis launch into airports in the Gulf states or the activities we’ve seen taken by Shia militias against American interests or the assassination efforts underway in the heart of Europe.

I think the world is beginning to see that the challenge is much bigger than anything that the JCPOA even pretended to have addressed. And I also see they’re thinking comments – they’re seeing statements like the ones that the Iranians have said this week. They’ve said, boy, if we end up withdrawing, we’ll start from a much higher level. I may have the quote off just a little bit but I’m very close. Wow, what does that say about the existence of the agreement, right? They’re going to start from a much higher level. It tells you that the agreement itself didn’t stop all of the paths to nuclear weapons in the way that it was sold to the American people.

Did I answer? You may have had a first question that I —

QUESTION: And the first question was are there any more administration officials who – previous administration officials who you believe are influencing allies and Iran? And also Secretary Kerry had mentioned that he thinks that the policy of this administration is regime change towards Iran. Is that the policy?

SECRETARY POMPEO: No, it’s not the policy. Ambassador Bolton and I both made very clear that’s not U.S. policy, in repeated sets of remarks. We are very supportive of the Iranian people having the leadership that they want. And as for whether there are other former administration officials engaged in that behavior, I won’t say today. Only to the extent that they are, the admonitions that I suggested for former Secretary Kerry would apply to them as well.

MS NAUERT: Thank you, everybody.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you all.

MS NAUERT: We’ve got to go. Thank you.

SECRETARY POMPEO: You all have a – you all have a great weekend.

[Transcript Link]

Many column inches and media discussions surround the recently released “NEW” text messages and emails attributed to FBI Agent Peter Strzok.  “NEW” revelations that show how the FBI was coordinating a “media leak strategy”; which essentially further evidences the level of corruption within the DOJ and FBI & weaponization for political motives.

However, there is a particular pattern and familiarity to these releases for those who follow the Administrative State, aka “Deep State”, within Washington DC closely.  According to Sean Hannity (Friday broadcast) next week there will be several thousand more of these “NEW” messages released. [Up to 50,000]

Amid these latest developments is where we find the all-too-familiar pattern. Where exactly were these “NEW” emails for the past sixteen months? Who is releasing these “NEW” messages? Why? And why now?

According to Joe diGenova, there’s a seated grand jury ready to pounce on Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok and all the corrupt elements associated within “spygate” and “fisa-gate”.   As the diGenova story is told, former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker has “turned states evidence”, and is now testifying to the grand scheme, etc. Exposing all those who participated. (Prompted – Just Hit Play)

.

Perhaps diGenova is right; perhaps all of those wonderful things are about to happen.  However, I’m of a generally more cynical disposition after years of following these creeps.  I hope diGenova is correct, but I fear he is fraught with misplaced optimism and/or bad information.  Here’s why:

First, James Baker went to work for the Lawfare group of Benjamin Witts.  You might remember Lawfare is the outside government advisory group for the internal legal group of usurpers.

It is challenging to work out any process were James Baker is simultaneously working with Lawfare, and delivering devastating testimony to the corrupt ideological group that Lawfare supports.

Secondly, lets focus on these “NEW” communications for a moment.

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were first questioned by FBI INSD (inspection division) in June and July 2017. That would be at least fifteen months ago.  Granting a period of investigative discovery, remove three months and say the general outline of the scheme has been known to the internal DOJ/FBI administrative state for around a year.

A year!

With around six weeks left to the election, now we are slowly getting to see previously unreleased communication?

Surely text messages and emails that would have held much more investigative value prior to the testimony of Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and Bruce Ohr.  Surely, these “NEW” communications would have been valuable to Inspector General Michael Horowitz during his own 16 month investigation (Jan ’17 – May ’18); yet for some unknown reason apparently withheld.

Remember the first batch of released Peter Strzok and Lisa Page messages?  They were delivered to congress in July 2017; and released to the public in December 2017 and January 2018.

Those initial messages were also redacted upon release –  why?

Remember the $70,000 McCabe desk being redacted?  Does that sound like a redaction done by an altruistic investigative endeavor; or does that speak to the underlying ideology of the internal officials doing the message redactions?… Who are also likely controlling these recent releases…. Think about it.

It is important to note it appears only congress is leading the investigative sunlight upon these releases.  That makes it 100% political.  So, who is giving them to congress?

We can only surmise the same DOJ/FBI entities that did the initial redactions in July 2017.  Some element within the DOJ and FBI apparatus, that is apparently in control of the most significant investigative material and making decisions on who gets what, when, and how much.  It think it is a fair statement to say these controlling officials are some unknown element within the apparatus of the DOJ/FBI branch of the Administrative State.

Remember, for all matters related to the Russia investigation, Russia election interference, and anything related to the 2016 presidential campaign, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is recused.  That carves his office out from anything surrounding this activity; and positions Rod Rosenstein at the hub along with FBI Director Christopher Wray.

That would be the same FBI Director Christopher Wray who did exactly nothing as an outcome of the May 2018 release of the IG report; and the same Christopher Wray who hired BACK former DOJ-NSD head Dana Boente as the FBI Chief Legal Counsel to manage the FBI through the investigative minefield.  Together with the same Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who testified to congress that he has absolutely no knowledge of who the lawyers are inside the DOJ and FBI that are giving instructions to Lisa Page and Peter Strzok not to answer congressional questions. WATCH:

.

That testimony is not exactly a confidence builder for the diGenova proposition that some magnanimous investigative authority is holding a grand-jury wherein corrupt Lawfare associate James Baker is delivering devastating testimony to deconstruct and prosecute those former officials within the DOJ and FBI deep state.  Someone is sending the FBI lawyers into congressional testimony and telling Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok not to answer any congressional questions; including about their contacts with the media.

And don’t forget the DOJ decision to allow former Senate Intelligence Committee Security Chief, James Wolfe, to avoid any of the more consequential charges for leaking classified intelligence to the media. That’s yet another example that doesn’t elicit great confidence in prosecution for less obvious law-breaking. I digress.

Again, hopefully I’m wrong – but there’s a pattern here: Fast-n-Furious, IRS Targeting, Benghazi, Clinton emails, Spy-gate and FISA-gate all have a ring of familiarity to them specifically about how the Administrative State holds, and then strategically releases, information. The key to understanding the pattern is to accept the Administrative State does everything to protect the Administrative State; even when it seems like those inside the apparatus are not protecting the interests of the Administrative State, they are.

♦So what does this latest development actually look like; and what does it mean?

Well, we have a good example for reference as provided by James Comey.

In October 2016 James Comey publicly announced the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation due to the New York FBI Field Office notifying DC of hundreds of thousands of emails and messages.  FBI across the street from Main Justice was forced into action by FBI from New York and the EDNY.

Generally, the media framed this episode as Comey hurting Clinton; when actually the opposite was true. Comey didn’t make that decision in a vacuum, he was advised of the approach. The administrative state was more fearful of congress de-legitimizing Clinton’s presidency over post-election discoveries of hidden information. Comey was protecting her, and the state interests, not vice-versa. Remember, she was expected to win.

These latest “NEW” Peter Strzok messages, as timed for release, are following the same DOJ/FBI pattern and motivation.

By redacting the information within the prior Strzok and Page messages, and by withholding the “NEW” Strzok and Page messages (until now), the same internal officials within the DOJ/FBI (Administrative State), are controlling the potential for damage from them. Controlling the timing mitigates the risk. Nothing more.

From the DC perspective the hope is that Trump loses the House of Representatives; and with that loss the congressional alliance with the executive is removed. All of the corrupt elements enmeshed within the career DOJ and FBI appear to be controlling the outcomes here. Releasing the previously withheld “NEW” communication diffuses and mitigates their risk.

They DOJ/FBI kicked-the-can to September so they could release the messages prior to the election (in the closed 60-day prosecutorial window); they’ve already got Sessions muted/neutered, likely to be fired regardless of election outcome; and they’ve mitigated any value in discovery from a more aggressive AG replacement.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I want to be wrong. Bigly.

However, after watching a complete lack of action from the prior IG report on gross FBI misconduct (May ’18 until today); and factoring in the history of how DC operates their familiar Potomac two-step with all of the aforementioned examples; I just don’t see any magnanimous or investigative reason for withholding the prior information that would have exposed the scheme.

If the Strzok/Page messages were released in January through August, that would have severely impacted the Mueller investigation credibility. In addition, the IG report(s) and questioning of all previous witnesses by congress would have been enhanced. In my opinion that’s part of the reason these messages were withheld; not some super-stealthy plan to deliver the hammer upon Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok and all of the corrupt conspiring officials within the apparatus.  I hope I’m wrong on this.

On the upside, there’s the potential these upcoming releases will help politically in November and put the democrats on their heels in advance of the November election. If the MAGA community can succeed on November 6th perhaps the DOJ will eventually get around to prosecuting someone, anyone, for the transparently illegal constructs.

If, big if, by some wonderful fate of luck, the third IG report on FISA abuse by the FBI is released in the next few weeks, that too would provide some measure of optimism toward intentional pre-election accountability. However, knowing the complex process in releasing a finished IG report, it does not appear that is likely to happen.

Here’s Joe diGenova again:

.

A very interesting speech by James O’Keefe at the Gateway-Eagle Forum highlights an upcoming Project Veritas enterprise.  What O’Keefe outlines is a preview for undercover research within Washington DC to put actual names and faces behind those who operate inside the Administrative State.  WATCH:

.

What James O’Keefe outlines is highly pertinent as it applies to current discussions of corrupt activity within the institutions of the DOJ and FBI. Specifically, the nameless and faceless administrators control much more important outcomes than generally discussed; including outcomes from a recent series of questions we posed. An example below.

When we ask questions about the origin of evidence, and the timing of “NEW” disclosures of evidence, one of the key factors missed by many is how lower level officials actually control what surfaces. Consider the example of Bruce Ohr being questioned about his engagements with Christopher Steele.

Notice how Mr. Bruce Ohr was questioned by some unnamed and unknown FBI officials prior to President Obama leaving office. When Obama leaves, and when President Trump enters, those same FBI officials remain – just as they were prior to the change in administration.

There is no change in the lower-level FBI officials who hold custody of the information; in this example, questioning Bruce Ohr. Whatever motive and ideology existed within those questioners during the Obama term, still remains under the Trump term.

Fast forward a few months and these same nameless faceless FBI entities in mid-2017 are retrieving messages and email communications from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Those messages and emails are then redacted, likely by the mid-level administrative offices.

This cuts to the heart of the questions surrounding: why are “new” Strzok messages being released now? Who was in control of this information prior to now? What was the motive for withholding this information over the past 16 months?  What is the motive for releasing this information now?

Unknown, unnamed and faceless administrators (and investigators) within the institutions control almost all of the evidence within the system. The system is designed by those within it to protect itself. James O’Keefe is the first person to openly address this “administrative state”, question the underlying assumptions, and start to put names and faces behind this anonymous bureaucracy.

O’Keefe’s efforts should be applauded.

There are moments when the professional narrative engineers go so far with falsehoods even their ideological co-horts have to admit they’ve gone to far.  Such is the case today with a New York Times article written to criticize U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley:

(Via New York Times) The State Department spent $52,701 last year buying customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Nikki R. Haley’s official residence as ambassador to the United Nations, just as the department was undergoing deep budget cuts and had frozen hiring.

The residence, in a new building on First Avenue, has spectacular views, and Ms. Haley is the first ambassador to live in it. For decades, her predecessors lived in the Waldorf Astoria hotel. But after the hotel was purchased by a Chinese insurance company with a murky ownership structure, the State Department decided in 2016 to find a new home for its top New York diplomat because of security concerns.

The government leased the apartment, just blocks from the delegation’s offices, with an option to buy, according to Patrick Kennedy, the top management official at the State Department during the Obama administration. The full-floor penthouse, with handsome hardwood floors covering large open spaces stretching nearly 6,000 square feet, was listed at $58,000 a month. (read more)

Except there’s a problem here.  This was all done by President Obama, Secretary John Kerry and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power.  Nikki Haley had nothing to do with it.

It was decided, well before the election in 2016, that the US Ambassador’s residence would move from the Waldorf to its new location. The new location was unfurnished/unfinished.

In June of 2016 it was decided that the State Department’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations would outfit the new residence (this is standard operating procedure for Ambassadors’ residences across the globe).  Bottom line: “Ambassador. Haley had no choice in the location of the residence or what curtains were picked out that summer.”

Which led to the following New York Times correction:

(Link to re-re-re-revised article)

In order words, Fake News!