Reportedly...Allegedly....quite frankly, I believe he probably did this and it's hilarious

quote:

Trump reportedly tossed a Starburst toward Merkel during G7 summit


President Trump reportedly tossed a Starburst toward German Chancellor Angela Merkel during the G7 summit in Canada.

The candy diplomacy took place during a tense exchange that was caught in a memorable image of Trump with arms folded while surrounded by European allies, according to CBS News.

“Trump was sitting there with his arms crossed, clearly not liking the fact that they were ganging up on him,” Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer said on “CBS This Morning.”

“He eventually agreed and said OK, he’ll sign it. And at that point, he stood up, put his hand in his pocket, his suit jacket pocket, and he took two Starburst candies out, threw them on the table and said to Merkel, ‘Here, Angela. Don’t say I never give you anything.’”

The Starburst outburst took place just before Trump boarded a plane to Singapore and proceeded to berate allies, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/20/...el-during-g7-summit/

^^^ Now come on, how can you simply not love this man?

Conservative Treehouse has an interesting trade development, quoted here in part.

quote:

First, we would draw your attention to May 23rd, when President Trump announced an instruction to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to begin a Section 301 review of the auto industry a week prior to the implementation of the Steel and Aluminum tariffs.

At the time when all media were discussing other ‘matters’ CTH pointed out the strategy that was visible in the Auto-Sector. China, the EU (specifically Germany), and Canada were the strategic trade targets in the approach. About a week later, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland snarkily announced her “sisterhood in trade” with EU Trade Minister Cecilia Malström, and how together they formed a strategy and were going to block President Trump. They were very pleased with themselves (please watch).

Freeland and Prime Minister Justin from Canada, then strategized with Emmanuel from France and Angela from Germany on how they were going to use the G7 to embarrass President Trump on trade conflict issues via the summit; and subsequent use of media press conferences. The entire thing back-fired, bigly. President Trump announced the tariffs would continue until trade reciprocity improved.



It’s been two weeks since the best-laid-scheme was attempted. In the interim, the international audience has watched President Trump’s unrelenting approach toward China.

In the grand-trade-conflict; China is a big fight none of the sideline players would ever attempt. However, the downstream consequence of the international trade team watching intently is their realization that President Trump is not bluffing. You can hear the proverbial gulps from across the Atlantic; and the tremors up North.

Back to May 23rd, 2018, and remember the auto tariff proposal. President Trump has made it clear that he’s more than willing to use reciprocal trade tariffs against all trade partners in getting fair and balanced trade. He ain’t bluffing.

Well, guess what just happened?

Yup, Germany, without consulting with Emmanuel from France, just unilaterally announce the EU is willing to drop all trade tariffs against U.S. auto manufacturers as part of their strategy to fend-off steel, aluminum and crushing auto tariffs.

BERLIN—Germany’s leading auto makers have thrown their support behind the abolition of all import tariffs for cars between the European Union and the U.S. in an effort to find a peaceful solution to the brewing trade war.

The U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, brought the proposal for a broader industry trade pact to the Trump administration on Wednesday, according to people familiar with the situation.

That would mean scrapping the EU’s 10% tax on auto imports from the U.S. and other countries and the 2.5% duty on auto imports in the U.S. As a prerequisite, the Europeans want President Donald Trump’s threat of imposing a 25% border tax on European auto imports off the table.

[…] A French official said Paris was unaware of the proposal, and it wasn’t discussed during a recent summit between French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Meseberg, Germany. (Read more)

Too damned funny.

Don’t overlook Angela Merkel making this announcement without consulting with Emmanuel Macron. The German auto-sector is vital to the German economy. Lose the support of the auto industry in Germany and Chancellor Merkel is toast.

Chancellor Merkel controls mini-brie Macron.

Emmanuel gets no respect (LOL).

What comes next?

Keep reading here.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Conservative Treehouse has an interesting trade development, quoted here in part.

Keep reading here.

That was a great breakdown with links to sources and other articles. I've already sent that on to quite a few people, along with the round-table that Trump had in Duluth.

Here is a great report about President Trump's rally in Duluth yesterday. I do love my president!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...live-from-duluth.php

HOWARD ROOT: LIVE FROM DULUTH
Our friend Howard Root attended the Trump rally in Duluth last night. This is his (fantastic) report along with photos he took at the event (at the top and bottom below):

When I arrived at 4:00 p.m., the line for admission was at least a half mile long. People had been lining up since before 10:00 a.m., with the line snaking through a glass skyway where the afternoon sun had raised the temperature to over 100. I’ve seen shorter lines for Springsteen tickets, yet everyone was exceptionally polite.

I only saw one protester on the walk over. He was standing on the street corner with his two small children and yelling “F*** Trump” as everyone walked past. On the way back to the car after the event I only saw three scraggly protesters trying to incite the crowd, to no avail other than getting detained by the police officers. I never saw the protest march or talk with anyone who saw it.

At least 25 percent of the audience was under the age of 30, and around 40 percent were women. The senior citizen percentage was less than 10 percent — the lowest I’ve ever seen at a Republican event. Other than the hundred or so party leaders, this was a vastly different crowd from the Minnesota Republican Convention that I attended in Duluth three weeks ago. None of the attendees I spoke with in the concession line at the rally were politically active (other than voting) and none were born-and-bred Republicans.

My big takeaway is that the atmosphere made Trump’s words almost irrelevant — and I mean that as a compliment. Trump understands emotion unlike any other politician I’ve followed. He stages his delivery with plenty of smiles, frequent claps (to the audience) and the longest walk to and from the podium I’ve ever seen. The two big differences between Trump and the usual politician are that (1) Trump never asks the audience for anything other than to be happy, and (2) Trump’s shtick is received as 100 percent authentic. Until I saw it last night, I never would have believed that a one-hour political speech could capture a 10,000-strong crowd from start to finish. A Trump rally is the one political event where you have to be in the room where it happens to understand how it works.

This rally was in support of Pete Stauber, who’s running for Congress in Minnesota’s Eighth District, and who delivered his best (and shortest) stump speech ever. Karin Housley, who’s running for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the disgraced Al Franken, also hit the mark in her short warm-up act and demonstrated why she’s a legitimate contender in November.

post above is on the same article from Powerline. I'll just leave the pic.

quote:

Originally posted by nojoy:
Watching the Trump rally now. Awesome. So far two
protestors kicked out.

I watched it too. FWIW, I did not see a single Black person in the crowd. Are there Blacks in Minnesota?

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by nojoy:
Watching the Trump rally now. Awesome. So far two
protestors kicked out.

I watched it too. FWIW, I did not see a single Black person in the crowd. Are there Blacks in Minnesota?

flashguy

Besides Somalians? There's some in Minneapolis, for sure.

I guess growing up with Where’s Waldo? books has me at an unfair advantage, because I spotted a black man in the photo two posts up in less than a second. White hat, standing facing to the right, just off the bill of the big red MAGA hat at the bottom, in the foreground. Likely, he wasn’t the only one.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei: FWIW, I did not see a single Black person in the crowd. Are there Blacks in Minnesota?

Not many at all outside of the Metro area. Duluth may have a higher percentage of Native Americans than black. Not sure, though.

I didn't ask that. Flashguy did.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:I watched it too. FWIW, I did not see a single Black person in the crowd. Are there Blacks in Minnesota?

flashguy

Not many at all outside of the Metro area. Duluth may have a higher percentage of Native Americans than black. Not sure, though.

I love the "Democrats say no to everything" line.

Here's the Twitter account of the man/woman that Trump kicked out last night. It's name is Sam Spadino, and it claims that it's not sure if it's a man or woman anymore in one tweet. Sounds like a typical, nebulous, senseless leftist perspective and comment. Whatever, darling.


https://twitter.com/partydino?lang=en

Mick Mulvaney on fed govt reorg

https://youtu.be/ODG4Dhs56Zo

from:

https://theconservativetreehou...ization/#more-150872

What SDY has linked I think will be widely accepted by Americans:





Link to original video: https://youtu.be/ODG4Dhs56Zo

----------------------------------------------

Mulvaney's presentation to the President & Cabinet:




Link to original video: https://youtu.be/5J_WWPQnVnA

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Mick Mulvaney on fed govt reorg

https://youtu.be/ODG4Dhs56Zo

from:

https://theconservativetreehou...ization/#more-150872

What Happened During the Michael Flynn FBI Interview?

An in-Depth Discussion with a Former Senior FBI Official


Sarah Carter

As I pointed out yesterday, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) believes there is evidence to suggest that some of the Russia/Clinton investigation FBI interview reports (known as 302s) were “changed to either prosecute or not prosecute” certain individuals.

This raises many concerns and questions. Among them, what does this mean for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Former FBI Director James Comey provided conflicting testimony and statements regarding whether or not the FBI agents who conducted the Flynn interview believed he was lying during the questioning.

So, what is an FBI 302 report?

I spoke with a former senior FBI official familiar with the case of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and asked what the process might have been like.

Sara: So, explain the process of putting together a 302 witness report?

Former Senior FBI Official: Typically, FBI procedures say that two agents are supposed to do the interview. The rationale behind it is so that you get two people, so there’s redundancy. For example, if one agent is unable to testify, there’s another person there who witnessed it. An interview of a subject usually comes at the very end of an investigation.

Sara: What happens next?

Former Senior FBI Official: …you may perform interviews of victims of crimes, not just the subject. So in the form of a bank robbery, you might have multiple 302s from the people who were there, the teller, somebody who saw the getaway car, or associates of the subject.

Sara: When you first go into an interview what is the process?

Former Senior FBI Official: You identify yourself. I’m “so and so,” a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You state the day, time, and you state the location of where the interview occurs. Once you’ve got that out of the way, then you delve into the actual process of the interview. Now an interview can be wide-ranging and it can go all over the place. You can typically go [to an interview] with an outline of what you want to talk about. You go in there with of full knowledge of the investigation and of what has transpired so far. And you typically try and get the person to talk about those things without revealing all of that information that you have, without showing your cards, without tipping your hand…

Sara: What are you looking for?

Former Senior FBI Official: As you’re performing that interview you get the person to talk about what you want them to talk about. Remember, the interview is strictly based on factual observations and statements that are made. There is no room for conjecture. There’s no room for opining and there is really no room for hypotheses to be put in [the 302 form]. It’s strictly observation. So you can make personal observations about the person’s demeanor… If I suspected that somebody was drunk or under the influence of a substance during the interview, I could say something to the effect, “upon walking into the room to interview X, the interviewing agent noted that he smelled heavily of alcohol. X was slurring their words and…having trouble making coherent sentences.” I could not say that I believe X was completely drunk because I did not know that for a fact and that’s not something that I was able to verify while there.

Sara: What is the other agent doing?

Former Senior FBI Official: Typically one agent will be doing interviewing, another agent will be taking notes. Sometimes both agents will take notes. You usually only want to have one agent take notes because if it goes to court, both sets of notes could present a problem if they are not in agreement.

Sara: Regarding Flynn’s particular interview, what would the process be once it’s completed?

Former Senior FBI Official: Both agents would physically sign that initial copy. In the case of Flynn…you know both [FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok] and FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka both would digitally sign the 302. You know there’s a system and the FBI agents put in a card that identifies them. There’s a specific pin that is known only to you. You look at the documents you say that everything looks good, then you click sign and…enter your pin. It’s digitally signed for you. Only they could do that. If somebody had their log-in information, which is highly unlikely, then, of course, they could do that. That’s really what a 302 is. It is a capture of facts and it is a capture of observations. It’s not a total report of an investigation. It’s not a summation of everything that’s happening. It’s just what transpired that snapshot in time for when they interview the person.

Sara: So they didn’t have to show Mike Flynn the transcripts of his conversation with the Russian ambassador or anyone else?

Former Senior FBI Official: No not at all. There’s no obligation to doing that sometimes because of the sensitivities of what you collected and how you collected the information. Sometimes you show people some of the evidence; it’s basically called the strategic use of evidence. Sometimes you will show people information that you have collected, not only help jog their memory but to maybe guide them into making the right decision. It’s not an obligation but if you’re trying to get them to specifically admit to something that you have, you can do that.

Sara: But now with all the new evidence on [Former Deputy Director] Andrew McCabe and Special Agent Peter Strzok, how does that affect the case? Would the agents have shared their findings with superiors?

Former Senior FBI Official: As you know there are all sorts of lies that have been discovered on what has transpired with regard to McCabe in particular, Comey possibly as well here, as well as other people that were involved in that sort of special investigation. McCabe was caught lying, Comey lying, and others. For example, with Flynn’s 302s and notes, the agents would take those documents back to headquarters and then share what they observed with people. McCabe and Comey may be two of those people. The agents are going to talk about it and people are going to ask how the interview went. They are going to read that document and then ask for the opinions of the investigators, in this case, Strzok and Pientka. And that is where this idea that you know one agent or possibly both agents said, “look we don’t think that he was lying or maybe he wasn’t forthcoming.”

Sara: I was told that McCabe was upset after hearing from the agents that they didn’t think he was lying…

Former Senior FBI Official: Yeah. I mean given what we’ve learned of McCabe so far and given what we know about McCabe’s previous actions of purposely trying to undermine the Trump, that’s what happened.

Sara: Was there a difference between the way the FBI handled Flynn’s case and the way the bureau handled McCabe’s case?

Former Senior FBI Official: Yes, Flynn was only interviewed once and was never under oath. McCabe was interviewed twice and was under oath during both instances. Further, Flynn was never told that he was being formally interviewed. McCabe was advised of the nature of his interviews on both occasions. Third, Flynn was never told what they suspected him of lying about and given the chance to explain. McCabe was asked, through the OPR process, on two occasions and through a formal document, whether he needed to clarify anything or change any information. He did not, which makes his lying intentional and with his full knowledge of his actions. And finally, Flynn has been charged with 18 USC 1001, making false official statements. McCabe has not.

Sara: Is it a conflict of interest now that the congressional committees and the IG have found that Strzok had such anti-Trump bias based on the fact that he was conducting the interview with Flynn and so involved in both investigations?

Former Senior FBI Official: It would, absolutely. Any judge would pick that apart in a court of law, any judge. I mean that is absolutely. He is tainted at that point. And you do have issues of taint in a court law… One of the things that you have issues with is [that] you have all this highly sensitive…top secret, tight reporting that occurs and you don’t want to have people who have been tainted by that material performing that interview. Now you do it for a lot of reasons. One, you do it because sometimes you can’t give up that information. So you want to get what’s called a clean team to do the interviews…people who haven’t had access to any of this highly sensitive information to perform the interview and you give them sort rough guidelines [of] what you want them to talk about and then hopefully they’ll get the person to admit to it.

Sara: Explain?

Former Senior FBI Official: That is, you won’t have to divulge where they received this extremely sensitive information. When you get very sensitive information from other governments…things that are within the arsenal of the U.S. government that you don’t want coming out …in the court of law.

Sara: What about now? Now we know that even before the interview with Flynn, Strzok was so vehemently anti-Trump that he had every reason to want to pursue charges against him? Could Strzok have suggested later down the line that Flynn was lying? I mean, I would think that this information would taint the interview they had with Flynn?

Former Senior FBI Official: I don’t know. I don’t have the legal mind for understanding that there’s actually a legal precedent against that and I would say that lawyer should absolutely have a field day with him being able to say that it was a biased interview because of the bias that Strzok had felt towards the Trump administration. I would be interested to see what McCabe’s text messages are that sent him to the next point. But, you know it also looks like they were kind of smart enough to do a lot of in-person meetings in Andy’s office and not put anything into texts. I think McCabe has been pretty shrewd in handling all communications and letting, you know, [Former FBI Attorney Lisa] Page be a conduit for it. Regardless of that, Flynn’s lawyer should absolutely have a field day with saying that…Flynn was a representative of the Trump administration and Strzok and McCabe had set their sights squarely on him as a member of the administration. They interviewed him and then they put this case together against him and presented those facts to the Special Counsel.

Sara: So if they didn’t think he lied, how did they get him to admit guilt and accuse him of lying in the end?

Former Senior FBI Official: It could be anything during the questioning that doesn’t exactly line up. They would question Flynn on the number of times he had contact with a Russian representative. They could have said, “Mr. Flynn how many times have you spoken with the Russian officials?” In good conscience, he may have said, “to the best of my recollection it was four to five times that I spoke with him.” Or, ” You know X amount of time.” That answer got that captured in the 302 document. The agents can go back and say, “we have technical collection says that he spoke with the Russians six or seven times.” And so, what you have is, you have Flynn saying “I suppose x amount of times” and then the government knowing he spoke this amount time. From a small inaccurate recollection, you have your a 18 USC 1001 charge, providing false information to federal agents. Now it’s pretty damn flimsy. And I think if it were taken to court… it would have a hard time making it stand upright.

Sara: What do you know about the Flynn interview?

Former Senior FBI Official: From what I understand Flynn was very forthcoming about the things that they really didn’t even ask him about or about things that…there’s no way he could have suspected that they knew information about. For example, other meetings that he had, or about people with whom he met and was very forthcoming about that. Even though he was very forthcoming about 99 percent of things that happened, if he misremembered, or if he was exhausted because the guy probably had about four hours of sleep a night during that time, it didn’t matter in the end. They wanted to get him. All he had to do was misremember one time that he talked to the guy. Then they could automatically brought him up on that one charge.

Sara: This seems like an easy way to entrap someone or get them on a charge that really is weak…

Former Senior FBI Official: Like I said, it’s a long tried and true technique that the FBI uses in investigations where they don’t have the very concrete charges to stick to somebody and they want to nail them. He got the charge that is usually filed against friends and families of suspects when you’re trying to break the suspect. And I gotta be honest with you, there have probably been times where the FBI has really overreached and might have overstepped the boundaries in using that 1001 charge. It’s a dangerous charge and easy to use.

Sara: So if Flynn didn’t lie, why did he plead guilty to the charge?

Former Senior FBI Official: From what I understand is that the McCabe/Strzok team basically tarnished his name overnight and then they hold out until… he’s really he’s at his wit’s end. Flynn’s financially in a hole. He’s already…sold his house. He’s completely destitute. The bureau starts going after his family and they say, “hey Mike Flynn, we’re going to go after your family.” Maybe [there’s] something they think they can get on his son or anyone close to him. Flynn is a true patriot and stand-up guy. So he takes the 1001 charge to get the Special Counsel off his back. The FBI and Special Counsel clap their hands and pat themselves on the back and then there it is. That’s how it all happens.

Sara: I would think there is some legal precedent for something like this; some kind of grounds just based on the fact that Strzok and McCabe appear to be so biased against Trump…

Former Senior FBI Official:…here’s the legal definition of Giglio information or material: it refers to material tending to impeach the character or testimony of the prosecution witness in a criminal trial. I’d say there’s something here based on all the evidence that’s already come forward.

Link

quote:

You usually only want to have one agent take notes because if it goes to court, both sets of notes could present a problem if they are not in agreement.

Weird. Why would two FBI agents sitting in the same place, at the same time, having the same conversation have differing versions of what was said?

Why not record the interview? Why must we rely on your notes that may or may not"agree"?

Unless that's the entire idea........

Now he's done it, Impeach forte-fyve:



https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/1009858228971241473

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

You usually only want to have one agent take notes because if it goes to court, both sets of notes could present a problem if they are not in agreement.

Weird. Why would two FBI agents sitting in the same place, at the same time, having the same conversation have differing versions of what was said?

Why not record the interview? Why must we rely on your notes that may or may not"agree"?

Unless that's the entire idea........

Interviews may not always take place in quiet, dignified surroundings, like a private office or conference room. These interviews can be in fairly informal circumstances. The ones I did with the FBI were always in my conference room, quiet, no interruptions or distractions, but they could be in a bar, a house with noisy kids, tv blaring, out on the street, who knows.

Ideally there are no inconsistencies, but you never know what clever and imaginative defense counsel can try to trip them up with. Why risk it?

The problem is with the testimony and notes being assumed to be gospel. If you are sure your notes will be accepted as what happened, you can be as fictional as you want. Depending on the issues and the complexities, it is possible to trip up a witness if you really really try. Right, Detective Fuhrman?

quote:

The U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, brought the proposal for a broader industry trade pact to the Trump administration on Wednesday, according to people familiar with the situation.

Just wanted to point this out--Rich Grenell is turning out to be a star on the order of Nikki Haley. He met with the German auto company heads, hammered out this deal which was then presented to the public.