Hat Tip OverTheMoonbat for making sure we didn’t miss this segment from last week.  This video also explains why Larry Kudlow, Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross and Peter Navarro have tended to spend more time discussing economic policy with CNBC analysts than Fox Business.   However, before watching, it is worth revisiting the background.

For three years CTH has explained the challenge in dealing with, or renegotiating with, the Beijing, China ideology.  Encapsulated thus in 2018:

[…] China has no cultural or political space between peace and war; they are a historic nation based on two points of polarity. They see peace and war as coexisting with each other.
China accepts and believes opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another. Flowing between these polar states is a natural dynamic to be used -with serious contemplation- in advancing objectives as needed.
Peace or war. Win or lose. Yin and Yang. Culturally there is no middle position in dealings with China; they are not constitutionally capable of understanding or valuing the western philosophy of mutual benefit where concession of terms gains a larger outcome. If it does not benefit China, it is not done. The outlook is simply, a polarity of peace or war. In politics or economics the same perspective is true. It is a zero-sum outlook.
If it does not benefit China, it is not done !

(more…)

Steve Bannon is at his best when he explains how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) use their power in economics -against the capitalist view of profit- to erode the values of western companies and corporations.   Good points made in this interview.

There is a serious problem here…

FISA Court judges Rosemary Collyer (declassified 2017) and James Boasberg (declassified 2019) both identified issues with the NSA database being exploited for unauthorized reasons.  We have a large amount of supplemental research to see through most of Collyer’s report and we are now starting the same process for Boasberg.  However, an alarming possibility makes it important to outline a rough draft of what appears present.
Initially when Collyer’s report was declassified in April 2017 we were able to start assembling additional circumstantial and direct evidence.  Two years of releases allowed us to see a more detailed picture.
Additional documents, direct testimony from NSA Director Mike Rogers, and later connected material from court filings, classified releases and ODNI statements made the understanding much clearer.  What became visible was a process of using the NSA database for political surveillance. [SEE HERE]
With the Boasberg report we do not yet have enough supportive material to identify specific purposes.  However, directly from the report itself there is a lot of information that shows a continuum of database activity that did not stop after Collyer’s warnings, and the NSA promises.   It seems, the political exploitation continues; and with that in mind some recent events are much more troubling.
Boasberg notes the “about” query option that NSA Director Mike Rogers halted, technically didn’t stop.   Instead operators used the “to and from” option almost identically as the “about” queries for downstream data review and extraction.  The FISA Appellate Court appointed amici curiae to review Boasberg’s opinion and reconcile counter claims by the FBI.   Boasberg was never satisfied despite the FISC-R amicus assurances. His opinion reflects valid judicial cynicism within his reluctant re-authorization.
(more…)

Lots of dragon-dancing with a very hungry panda.

President Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin gathered with their Chinese counterparts in the Oval Office for a lengthy  announcement of “phase-one” of a U.S-China trade agreement.  Vice-Premier Liu He leads the Chinese delegation.  [No point sheet on USTR website yet]  According to the presser:

Phase One has reached ‘agreement in principle‘, and includes: Intellectual Property issues; Banking and Financial Services to include currency devaluation; and major agricultural purchases ($50 billion +).  There will be several phases, and each phase will have an individually tailored enforcement mechanism. [Note: this approach sounds similar to the ‘six sectors and stages’ USTR Lighthizer discussed in March 2019.]
The Phase One agreement details still have to be put on paper over the next five to six weeks.  The U.S. and China are hopeful to have ‘phase one‘ complete by December. In exchange for current AG purchase commitments, and as an act of good faith while phase-one is finalized, the U.S. will suspend the tariff rate increases scheduled to take effect on October 15th. The tariff increase from 25% to 30% has been ‘suspended‘.
The scheduled U.S. tariff increases for December are still planned; however, they will be assessed as part of the ongoing negotiations.  Meanwhile, touchy issues like tech company Hauwei, 5G, telecom and the Chinese firms on the U.S. blocked “entity list” (ie. trade ‘blacklist’) are not part of the discussions.  Those issues fall under U.S. National Security and will not be part of any ongoing trade negotiations.
[Video Below]
(more…)

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith resigns from Fox News effective immediately:

House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes discusses former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testifying to her friends in congress during the Democrats’ “chaotic circus” of an impeachment inquiry.

A report from the Wall Street Journal outlines a request by lawyers for the fake CIA ‘whistleblower’ that ultimately spells doom for the entire phony construct of the impeachment construction by anonymous complaint.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting the anonymous gossipers’ lawyers are now requesting official impeachment testimony by letters not an in-person appearance.  If this is accurate such a request speaks directly to the abject stupidity of the claim:

WASHINGTON—Lawyers for the CIA officer whose whistleblower complaint helped ignite an impeachment inquiry into President Trump have asked Congress whether their client could submit testimony in writing instead of appearing in person, according to people familiar with the matter.
The request reflects concerns about whether the whistleblower could testify to Democrats and Republicans without revealing his identity, and fears that doing so would lead to it being publicly leaked, jeopardizing his personal safety. The intelligence committees haven’t yet responded to the inquiry about potential written testimony, the people said.

(more…)

Two years of litigation, thousands of resistance hours used, millions spent on lawyers, and they don’t even get a T-Shirt.  Oh dear…  too funny.

(New York Times) If investigators are going to get their hands on President Trump’s tax returns, they will have to find them somewhere other than Deutsche Bank.

The German bank has told a federal appeals court that it does not have the president’s personal tax returns, the court said on Thursday. (read more)

Be Best !
(more…)

The House democrats will keep doing this until someone in the media begins to hit them with hard questions that expose the nonsense.

Today Chairman Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (Committee on White House Oversight; and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) continue sending carefully worded letters under the guise of ‘subpoenas’. [Main Link Here]

Again, just like all prior examples, this is not a “subpoena”, it is a letter calling itself a “subpoena” and carries NO legal penalty for non-compliance. A legislative “letter” needs to carry judicial enforcement authority –A PENALTY– in order to be a “subpoena”.
There is no penalty that can be associated with these demands because the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their non-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.
It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight.  However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8.  The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose. 
There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.  That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.
(more…)

If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the media pushing her narrative the impeachment effort would have already failed.    In this interview Judiciary committee ranking member Doug Collins states the un-American inquiry is likely to backfire.