The Bill Barr Interview with CBS

All due credit and attribution to our former Tree and Sundance. I have reposted his work, including his bolding for emphasis found with the transcript. Yes, I understand it is odd to repost work from our former tree, yet this interview, with Attorney General Bill Barr, is extremely important for all Americans to see. 
Today, across social media we see snippets of quotations from the interview. It’s important to have the audio of the interview AND the full transcript for context. 
Here we go, and again, thank you to Sundance. 
“U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr gave a 48 minute interview to CBS on a variety of issues related to recent events. The interview is packed with insight about the ongoing DOJ investigations of prior DOJ and FBI conduct in the 2016 election.
Rather than post the edited excerpts of the interview as broadcast, the full audio and transcript is below. Very interesting. [Hit orange play arrow to begin]:
https://soundcloud.com/cbsthismorning/exclusive-ag-william-barr-on-special-counsel-mueller-and-the-russia-probe
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/629487828″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&visual=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
.
[Transcript] JAN CRAWFORD: Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for sitting down with us. So, obviously we saw the special counsel yesterday make that statement, he analyzed 11 instances where there were possible obstruction and then said that he really couldn’t make a decision- conclusion on whether or not the president had in fact committed obstruction because of the existing OLC opinion in the legal counsel’s office. Do you agree with that interpretation that that legal opinion prevented him from making a conclusion?
WILLIAM BARR: I am not sure he said it prevented him. I think what he said was he took that into account plus a number of other prudential judgments about fairness and other things and decided that the best course was not for him to reach a decision. I personally felt he could’ve reached a decision but–

JAN CRAWFORD: Was there anything that would’ve stopped him in the regulations or in those…that opinion itself, he could’ve — in your view he could’ve reached a conclusion?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, he could’ve reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office but he could’ve reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity but he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons but when he didn’t make a decision, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I felt it was necessary for us as the heads of the Department to reach that decision. That is what the Department of Justice does, that is why we have the compulsory powers like a grand jury to force people to give us evidence so that we can determine whether a crime has committed and in order to legitimate the process we felt we had to reach a decision.
JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I mean, he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I am not sure what he was suggesting but, you know, the Department of Justice doesn’t use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress. Congress is a separate branch of government and they can, you know, they have processes, we have our processes. Ours are related to the criminal justice process we are not an extension of Congress’s investigative powers.
JAN CRAWFORD: Now you have testified that when you met with Mueller at the Justice Department, you had that meeting, that you were surprised that he told you then that he was not going to reach a conclusion on obstruction.
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, Rod and I were both surprised by that.
JAN CRAWFORD: Did you ask him, look, we need you to make a conclusion on this? You should make a conclusion.
WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn’t say I really pressed him on it. I was interested in his thinking on it and he explained his position, said he was still thinking it through and- and- but I didn’t really press him nor did Rod.
JAN CRAWFORD: So, but you left that meeting thinking that he wasn’t going to have a conclusion?
WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.
JAN CRAWFORD: Do you feel because he didn’t do that, did he fulfill his responsibility as special counsel? If you look at regulations, it seems to anticipate that you would get a confidential report explaining why he made a decision to either prosecute or decline to prosecute. He didn’t do that, seems to me.
WILLIAM BARR: Right, but on the other hand he did provide us a report and what he viewed to be the relevant facts. And that allowed us as the, as the leaders of the department to make that decision.
JAN CRAWFORD: What is the fundamental difference? Why…I mean, he said he couldn’t exonerate the president. That he had looked at the evil there – these 11 instances of possible obstruction. He couldn’t exonerate the president, if he could he would’ve stated so. You looked at that evidence and you did. I mean, what is the fundamental difference between your view and his?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I think Bob said that he was not going to engage in the analysis. He was, he was not going to make a determination one way or the other. And he also said that he could not say that the president was clearly did not violate the law, which of course is not the standard we use at the department. We have to determine whether there is clear violation of the law and so we applied the standards we would normally apply. We analyzed the law and the facts and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction.
JAN CRAWFORD: As a matter of law?
WILLIAM BARR: As a matter of law. In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis- a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers and so we applied what we thought was the right law but then we didn’t rely on that. We also looked at all the facts, tried to determine whether the government could establish all the elements and as to each of those episodes we felt that the evidence was deficient.

JAN CRAWFORD: Before you became attorney general you wrote a memo to the justice department looking at the — the question and the legal standards for obstruction and suggesting that the president has the authority to say back off of the Flynn investigation and could have fired James Comey under his executive authority, how much – I mean when you’re talking about, can you explain that a little more. When you’re talking about your judgment that no obstruction occurred based on the evidence that Mueller produced and your understanding of the law, can you explain a little more why wasn’t that obstruction?
WILLIAM BARR: Well let’s take the firing of Comey for example I think we would have said as a matter of law, and I’m not relying on my – my legal memo that I wrote as a private citizen but really on the views within the department of the people who think about these things and are responsible for framing the views of the department, and I think we would have said that as a matter of law the obstruction statutes do not reach facially valid exercise of core presidential authority or official authority even, decisions by the attorney general in administering the executive branch or litigation.
But we didn’t rely on that, we then looked at that issue let’s take the again the firing of Comey. One of the elements is that you have to show that the act objectively speaking will have the probable effect of obstructing a proceeding and we don’t believe that the firing of an agency head could be established as having the probable effect, objectively speaking, of sabotaging a proceeding. There was also we would have to prove corrupt intent, the report itself points out that one of the likely motivations here was the president’s frustration with Comey saying something publicly and saying a different thing privately and refusing to correct the record. So that would not have been a corrupt intent. So for each of these episodes we thought long and hard about it, we looked at the facts and we didn’t feel the government could establish obstruction in these cases
JAN CRAWFORD: When you see some of the criticism and you’ve gotten quite a bit of it that you’re protecting the president that you’re enabling the president, what’s your response to that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, we live in a hyper-partisan age where people no longer really pay attention to the substance of what’s said but as to who says it and what side they’re on and what it’s political ramifications are. The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance and I’m going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that’s intention with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically. so I think it just goes with the territory of being the attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time.
JAN CRAWFORD: The four page summary that you wrote, did you ask in that March 5th meeting for the special counsel to kind of redact all the grand jury material?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, not redact it but highlight it so we could redact it, we would, so, you know, the report was over 400 pages, I knew that it was voluminous and coming our way in a few weeks. My intent was to get out as much as I could as quickly as I could. To do that I would have to, as a matter of law, make sure that grand jury material was redacted because regardless of the political posturing that’s going on it’s not lawful for me to just make that public.
JAN CRAWFORD: Not even to Congress?
WILLIAM BARR: Not even–
JAN CRAWFORD: So you could even give Congress, which of course is demanding that and threatening to hold you in contempt because you’re not giving them the full report
WILLIAM BARR: That’s right, and so–
JAN CRAWFORD: But by law you can’t?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, and so because we were not involved in the investigation we would have no way looking at the report of determining what was grand jury material and what wasn’t, so we had for a period of weeks been asking the special counsel’s office to highlight the stuff so we could quickly process it for release and I guess–
JAN CRAWFORD: For a period of weeks you had asked for this material?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah even before the March 5 meeting we had asked or raised the subject–
JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?
WILLIAM BARR: And then at the March 5 meeting I made it explicit and then after the March 5th meeting we asked..
JAN CRAWFORD: And what was the response?
WILLIAM BARR: We thought it was being– we thought it was being done and I do believe they were putting in more footnotes in that would be necessary ultimately in identifying the material but whether the wires were crossed or whatever it didn’t come in a form that identified the 6E material.
JAN CRAWFORD: And that was a surprise to you when you got the report?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: It was.
WILLIAM BARR: And it immediately meant that you know it was going to be a period of weeks before we could get the report out if I had my druthers I would have liked to get the report out as quickly as possible.
JAN CRAWFORD: So instead, you turned this four page summary?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, because I didn’t think the body politic would allow us to go on radio silence for four weeks. I mean, people were camped outside my house and the department and every- there was all kinds of wild speculation going on. Former senior intelligence officials who were purporting to have it- or intimating that they had inside information were suggesting that the president and his family were going to be indicted and so forth–
JAN CRAWFORD: And saying that publicly?
WILLIAM BARR: Saying that publicly. There was all kind of wild and–
JAN CRAWFORD: And you knew that to be false?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, and it was wild and irresponsible speculation going on which the very–
JAN CRAWFORD: Wild and irresponsible. The former intelligence officials’ speculation–
WILLIAM BARR: Right, and talking heads and things like that, and these things affect the United States’ ability to function in the world. We have an economy. It could affect the economy. It can affect – it can affect our foreign relations during very delicate period of time with, you know, serious adversaries in the world. So I felt- that in order to buy time, in order to get the report out, I had to state the bottom line just like you’re announcing a verdict in a case. My purpose there was not to summarize every jot and tittle of the report and every, you know, angle that – that Mueller looked into. But, just state the bottom line which I did in the four page memo.
JAN CRAWFORD: You didn’t say in that four-page memo that the report would not exonerate the president on obstruction. That line–
WILLIAM BARR: I said that, yes. In the- in the- in my four-page memo, I said that Mueller did not reach a decision. He gave both sides and that- and then I quoted that sentence which is, while we didn’t find a crime, we didn’t exonerate the president. That was in the four-page letter.
JAN CRAWFORD: The- did not- we would so clearly state the preface to that.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah.
JAN CRAWFORD: That, that was not in there, and there was some criticism that in the summary, and the attorney- I mean, the special counsel himself wrote the letter saying, People are misunderstanding. There’s been some confusion, that the summary had caused some confusion–
WILLIAM BARR: Right, right.
JAN CRAWFORD: That perhaps, and he didn’t say this, but the- the response was that you were too soft on the president, that actually the special counsel was a little sharper on obstruction.
WILLIAM BARR: Well again, I wasn’t trying to provide all the flavor and nooks and crannies of the report. I was just trying to state the bottom line, and the bottom line was that Bob Mueller identified some episodes. He did not reach a conclusion. He provided both sides of the issue, and he- his conclusion was he wasn’t exonerating the president, but he wasn’t finding a crime either. And, for the purposes of the point, I think that that was what was required for the body politic because actually most of the letter then goes on to explain how Rod Rosenstein and I reached a decision and the criteria we applied in finding no obstruction.
JAN CRAWFORD: He wrote the letter taking issue, saying there caused- you had caused confusion. Did that catch you off guard?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, sure. I was surprised he just didn’t pick up the phone and call me given our 30 year relationship, but–
JAN CRAWFORD: Why didn’t he?
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t, I don’t know, but, as I said it in the hearing, I thought it was- the letter was a little snitty and staff-driven–
JAN CRAWFORD: Staff-driven?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah. I personally felt, but we had a good conversation–
JAN CRAWFORD: Because otherwise you would have picked up the phone?
WILLIAM BARR: Right, well, which I did, and we had a good conversation. And I think, I think the matter is now been fully vetted, and I think he was concerned that there should be more context and texture to his work given, and that in the absence of that, the vacuum had been filled with media reports that were then causing confusion, and he wanted it clarified by putting more of an explanation of his reasoning out. And I said that I didn’t want to put out dribs and drabs, I wanted the whole report out. And then I wrote a letter again to Congress saying, look, I didn’t- this is not intended to be a full summary. Bob’s thinking is reflected in the report. Everyone’s going to have access to it. They should look at that to determine, you know, what Bob’s reasoning was. So that’s where we let it sit till the report was released.
JAN CRAWFORD: You said that you had wanted to release the report in full, and you largely have with the grand jury material being, of course, the exception.
WILLIAM BARR: Right. And in the second volume that’s one tenth of one percent of the report has been taken.
JAN CRAWFORD: You, I just want to be clear on this. How long and how many, you expected the special counsel’s office to redact that material, so to point out what should be redacted —
WILLIAM BARR: Right. Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: So the four-page summary would have been unnecessary?
WILLIAM BARR: Correct.
JAN CRAWFORD: You expected, could you just tell us again, you expected to get the report with the grand jury material identified and then what was your plan?
WILLIAM BARR: My plan was to figure out how long it would take us to redact what had to be redacted.
JAN CRAWFORD: And what did you anticipate that would be?
WILLIAM BARR: And if we could readily, if we could readily identify the 6E material, I thought we could do it in a you know less than a week. And if I had been looking at a matter of days like that, then I probably would have just told people what the timeline is do people knew when it would be coming out when they would see it, but once I realized it was going to take 3 or 4 weeks, I felt I had to say something in the interim.
JAN CRAWFORD: But if you had had that material pointed out this would have all been different, you wouldn’t have written the four-page summary?
WILLIAM BARR: Probably not, no.
JAN CRAWFORD: I guess just to finish up on this topic then, when we saw the special counsel yesterday, you put out the statement that there wasn’t really any kind of discrepancy in some of things that you had been saying.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, we both put out the statement.
JAN CRAWFORD: Was that the first time there had been a joint statement?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: And why —
WILLIAM BARR: I believe so.
JAN CRAWFORD: — And why was that necessary?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, because I think there was some people who let the facts interfere with their narrative and were trying to suggest that there was a difference of opinion about the role played by the OLC opinion, which simply wasn’t true.
JAN CRAWFORD: The difference is your views on obstruction and–
WILLIAM BARR: — Well the difference was this so —
JAN CRAWFORD: I understand what you’re saying and I guess, I guess you focused on the role the OLC memo, opinion played–
WILLIAM BARR: –Right–
JAN CRAWFORD: –In the statement?
WILLIAM BARR: The so-called discrepancy was that I had, I had testified earlier that Bob had assured me that he had not reached a decision that there was a crime committed but was not willing to pursue it simply because of the OLC opinion and that remains the fact. That’s what his position is. That’s consistent with what he said yesterday. And it certainly is consistent with the joint release we put out. The confusion arose because what Bob Mueller’s position was was that the OLC opinion coupled with other things as a prudential matter made him feel that he shouldn’t even get into the analysis of whether something was a crime or not and that’s a different question than —
JAN CRAWFORD: Right, because you…just because there’s evidence of obstruction or crime was committed doesn’t mean the person is going to be charged or indicted or found to have committed that crime.
WILLIAM BARR: Right and he didn’t’ even get into that analysis. In other words, what I was discussing earlier was, was Bob, did Bob make a decision there was a crime and the only reason he wasn’t saying that was because of the OLC opinion. The fact is Bob did not make a decision that there was a crime. He didn’t get into the analysis at all. Part of the reason for that was his judgment about the OLC opinion coupled with other things he just didn’t think it was proper exercise of his authority. So it’s a totally different issue and that’s why, that’s why both us feel that this idea that there’s been a discrepancy over the OLC opinion is simply wrong.
JAN CRAWFORD: Did you watch him give the statement yesterday?
WILLIAM BARR: I watched a re-run of it, yeah.
JAN CRAWFORD: Anything new or different?
WILLIAM BARR: No I mean to me it was a reiteration of some of the key elements of his report. I think he wanted to stress a number of things that were in the report. There had been a lot of commentary about his work. I had made some critical remarks about it. So I think it’s quite understandable he wanted to hammer home a few of the key points that were in the report and I thought that that was fine.
JAN CRAWFORD: He said he’s not going to be testifying.
WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.
JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think he should?
WILLIAM BARR: You know, I think as I said, you know, it’s up to Bob, but I think the line he’s drawing which is that he’s going to stick what he said in the report is the proper line for any Department official.
JAN CRAWFORD: But you’ve testified under oath, answered questions under oath. He took no questions yesterday. Is that sufficient?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think it’s sufficient because, you know, he was handling a specific investigation and normally we don’t, we allowed our prosecutors and have them interrogated about how they handled a particular case. I think —
JAN CRAWFORD: But you wouldn’t have objected if he wanted to testify?
WILLIAM BARR: I wouldn’t have objected if he wanted to testify. I do think that his view that he should stick to what is in the report is consistent with the department’s views of these things.
JAN CRAWFORD: So the last thing that he said yesterday was to remind us that Russia tried to sway our election. He said there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere and that deserves the attention of every American. How’s the Justice Department working now to ensure this doesn’t happen again in 2020?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes, we do have. I think an increasingly robust program that is focusing on foreign influence in our election process. The FBI obviously has the lead in that and I’ve been briefed on it on a regular basis and I think it’s a very impressive effort but, we are ramping up. I talked recently to the director of the FBI about putting together a special high-level group to make sure we’re totally prepared for the upcoming elections.
JAN CRAWFORD: And the high level group would be? Who would that include?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, it would include the FBI, the Department of Justice, DHS and intelligence agencies.
JAN CRAWFORD: Do you think enough was done in 2016?
WILLIAM BARR: Enough was done in 2016? Probably not. You know, I think Bob Mueller did some impressive work in his investigation, you know, identifying some of the Russian hackers and their influence campaign and you sort of wonder if that kind of work had been done starting in 2016, things could have been a lot different.
JAN CRAWFORD: Right because it’s just hard to understand why it wasn’t taken more seriously.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: Why do you think it was not?
WILLIAM BARR: I have no idea. That’s one of the things I’m interested in looking at you know–
JAN CRAWFORD: –As part of the review?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes. In other words, you know, there are statements being made that people were warned back in April–
JAN CRAWFORD: –of 2016–
WILLIAM BARR: Right and I don’t have any reason to doubt that, but I’m wondering what exactly was the response to it if they were alarmed. Surely the response should have been more than just, you know, dangling a confidential informant in front of a peripheral player in the Trump Campaign.
JAN CRAWFORD: I want to talk to you about the investigation. Um, because your, that’s suggesting that was obviously inadequate, but when you talk to Director Wray about appointing this high level group and efforts to ensure that this doesn’t happen again in 2020, has he expressed any concern to you that the kind of review that you are now going to undertake, or this investigation of the investigation, that that could hamper these efforts in 2020?
WILLIAM BARR: We’ve discussed how important it is that that not be allowed to happen and we are both very cognizant of that and–
JAN CRAWFORD: —You have discussed that with him?
WILLIAM BARR: Oh yes, and I think he is being very supportive and we’re working together on, you know, trying to reconstruct what happened. People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016, these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign, were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell. And a lot of the people who were involved are no longer there.
JAN CRAWFORD: So when we are talking about the kind of the– well you have used the word spy. You have testified that you believe spying occurred.
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: Into the Trump campaign.
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: You’ve gotten some criticism for using that word.
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I mean, I guess it’s become a dirty word somehow. It hasn’t ever been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spying, the question is always whether it is authorized by law and properly predicated and if it is, then it’s an important tool the United States has to protect the country.
JAN CRAWFORD: On using the word, I mean, do you understand, and I know that some of the, some former intelligence chiefs have said that the president has made that word somewhat pejorative, that there is spying, this is a witch hunt, this is a hoax, and so your use of that word makes it seem that you are being a loyalist.
WILLIAM BARR: You know, it’s part of the craziness of the modern day that if a president uses a word, then all of a sudden it becomes off bounds. It’s a perfectly good English word, I will continue to use it.
JAN CRAWFORD: You’re saying that spying occurred. There’s not anything necessarily wrong with that.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: As long as there’s a reason for it.

WILLIAM BARR: Whether it’s adequately predicated. And look, I think if we — we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that’s bad for the republic. But by the same token, it’s just as, it’s just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections.
JAN CRAWFORD: So it’s just as dangerous- So when we talk about foreign interference versus say a government abuse of power, which is more troubling?
WILLIAM BARR: Well they’re both, they’re both troubling.
JAN CRAWFORD: Equally?
WILLIAM BARR: In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.
JAN CRAWFORD: And you are concerned that that may have happened in 2016?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I just think it has to be carefully look at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it’s a serious red line that’s been crossed.
JAN CRAWFORD: Did that happen?
WILLIAM BARR: There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign. And I’m not saying there was not a basis for it, that it was legitimate, but I want to see what that basis was and make sure it was legitimate.
JAN CRAWFORD: So–
WILLIAM BARR: That’s one of the, you know, one of the key responsibilities of the Attorney General, core responsibilities of the Attorney General is to make sure that government power is not abused and that the right of Americans are not transgressed by abusive government power. That’s the responsibility of the Attorney General.
JAN CRAWFORD: You know the- I guess- we’ve spent the last two years or more talking about and hearing about Russian interference into the elections and what occurred there. And so now we’re shifting to talking about actually investigating, reviewing that investigation and the people who did that. So I guess in making this turn can you help us understand, I mean what’s- what is the concern? What have you seen, what’s the basis for that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well I don’t want to get you know, too much into the facts because it’s still under review. But I think it’s important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our second amendment- I’m sorry, the core of our first amendment liberties in this country. And what was the predicate for it? What was the hurdle that had to be crossed? What was the process- who had to approve it? And including the electronic surveillance, whatever electronic surveillance was done. And was everyone operating in their proper lane? And I’ve selected a terrific career prosecutor from the department who’s been there over thirty years, he’s now the U.S. attorney.
WILLIAM BARR: But he has, over the years, been used by both Republican and Democratic attorney generals to investigate these kinds of activities. And he’s always gotten the most laudatory feedback from his work. So there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s going- he’s going to conduct a thorough and fair review of this. And we’re working closely with the intelligence agencies, the bureau and the agency and others to help us reconstruct what happened. And I want to see, what were the standards that were applied. What was the evidence? What were the techniques used? Who approved them? Was there a legitimate basis for it?
JAN CRAWFORD: The Inspector General is looking at only, it is my understanding, a small part of this? Is that correct? the FISA warrant?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, I wouldn’t say small but he’s looking at a discrete area that is- that is you know, important, which is the use of electronic surveillance that was targeted at Carter Page.
JAN CRAWFORD: And could he have… could you have just said I want to expand this investigation? Why did you feel it was necessary to turn to John Durham?
WILLIAM BARR: Well the inspector general at the department, Mike Horowitz, who you know is a superb government official he has limited powers. He doesn’t have the power to compel testimony, he doesn’t have the power really to investigate beyond the current cast of characters at the Department of Justice. His ability to get information from former officials or from other agencies outside the department is very limited
JAN CRAWFORD: So he wouldn’t have been able to go and try to speak with some of the former officials who are making these decisions, necessarily?
WILLIAM BARR: Right
JAN CRAWFORD: If they are not in the department anymore.
WILLIAM BARR: Right
JAN CRAWFORD: Um, what’s the status of Huber’s investigation in Utah? I think the former Attorney General Sessions had asked him to look at this.
WILLIAM BARR: Right, so Huber had originally been asked to take a look at the FISA applications and the electronic surveillance but then he stood back and put that on hold while the Office of Inspector General was conducting its review, which would’ve been normal for the department. And he was essentially on standby in case Mr. Horowitz referred a matter to him to be handled criminally. So he has not been active on this front in recent months and so Durham is taking over that role. The other issues he’s been working on relate to Hillary Clinton. Those are winding down and hopefully we’ll be in a position to bring those to fruition.
JAN CRAWFORD: So he won’t be involved in this really at all then?
WILLIAM BARR: No.
JAN CRAWFORD: This is his role, it’s done?
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: And now Durham is going to pick up–
WILL BARR: Yes, right.
JAN CRAWFORD: –this. So again, just to go, just so that I think so people can more fully understand this, I mean have you, and I know it’s early in the investigation, but when we are talking about the basis for this and why you think it is important and obviously any kind of government abuse of power, I mean, you were in the CIA in the ’70s. You can see how that can have….
WILLIAM BARR: Right, when I, when I joined the CIA almost 50 years ago as an intern and this was during the Vietnam, civil rights era and there had been a lot…there were a lot of pending investigations of the CIA and there the issues were what was- when was it appropriate for intelligence agencies, the FBI too was under investigation.
You know, the penetration of civil rights groups because at the time there was concerns about contacts with, you know, communist funded front groups and things like that and you know how deeply could you get into civil rights groups or anti-Vietnam war groups. A lot of these groups were in contact with foreign adversaries, they had some contact with front organizations and so forth and there were a lot of rules put in place and those rules are under the attorney general.
The attorney general’s responsibility is to make sure that these powers are not used to tread upon first amendment activity and that certainly was a big part of my formative years of dealing with those issues. The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn’t seem to think that it’s worth looking into. They’re supposed to be the watchdogs of, you know, our civil liberties.
JAN CRAWFORD: What have you seen? What evidence? What makes you think, I need to take a look at this? I mean, what have you seen in the summer of 2016?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I’ll say at this point is that it, you know, I- like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that- that I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.
JAN CRAWFORD: What do you mean by that?
WILLIAM BARR: That’s all I really will say. Things are just not jiving, and I’m not saying at this stage that–
JAN CRAWFORD: Was it a timeline?
WILLIAM BARR: There was a timeline, there’s some timeline–
JAN CRAWFORD: I mean, there’s a concern that this may have happened before we realized that the investigation was initiated in July. I mean, what…
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t want to get into those details at this point. I would just say that, you know…
JAN CRAWFORD: But you said there’s a timeline concern.
WILLIAM BARR: Well I won’t, I won’t confirm that, but I’ll just say that, you know, there’s some questions that I think have to be answered, and I have a basis for feeling there has to be a review of this.
JAN CRAWFORD: You’ve said, you’ve said the time frame between the election and the inauguration, you’ve said this publicly, was kind of strange. Some strange things may have happened. What concerns you there? Specifically, the meeting at Trump Tower.
WILLIAM BARR: I don’t want to- I don’t want to get into that.
JAN CRAWFORD: Okay. Yes. So kind of going back to what we were talking about with Director Wray, I mean obviously you’ve seen this like the people are raising concerns that this is going to undermine FBI morale. The rank and file- what are we saying here- but you said in recent Senate testimony, “this is not launching an investigation of the FBI frankly to the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that’s endemic to the FBI. I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon.”
WILLIAM BARR: That’s right.
JAN CRAWFORD: So there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there at the upper echelon?
WILLIAM BARR: Correct. In other words, I don’t believe this is a problem you know, rife through the bureau.
JAN CRAWFORD: What suggests to you there was a failure in the upper echelon at the FBI?
WILLIAM BARR: Because I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level. Out of head quarters–
JAN CRAWFORD: And you’re talking about James Comey, McCabe?
WILLIAM BARR: I’m just not going to get into the individual names at this point. But I just view that- I don’t view it as a bureau wide issue. And I will say the same thing for other intelligence agencies. And they’re being very cooperative in helping us.
JAN CRAWFORD: They’re being cooperative?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: You’re working with the DNI, the head of CIA. I want to ask you about something- just declassification. But the president has tweeted and said publicly that some in the upper echelon, Comey, McCabe, etc., committed treason. I mean do you agree with that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I- as a lawyer I always interpret the word treason not colloquially but legally. And you know the very specific criteria for treason- so I don’t think it’s actually implicated in the situation that we have now. But I think what he–
JAN CRAWFORD: Legally.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: You don’t think that they’ve committed treason?
WILLIAM BARR: Not as a legal matter, no.
JAN CRAWFORD: But you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes but you know, when you’re dealing with official government contact, intent is frequently a murky issue. I’m not suggesting that people did what they did necessarily because of conscious, nefarious motives. Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system that we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and insensitive than everybody else. They can- in their own mind, they can have those kinds of motives. And sometimes they can look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.
WILLIAM BARR: That something objectively as applied as a neutral principle across the board really you know, shouldn’t be the standard used in the case but because they have a particular bias they don’t see that. So that’s why procedures and standards are important and review afterward is an important way of making sure that government power is being conscientiously and properly applied. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are people- you know, that people have crossed lines have done so with corrupt intent or anything like that.
JAN CRAWFORD: But it seems like you have a concern that there may have been a bias by top officials in the FBI as they looked at whether to launch and conduct this investigation?
WILLIAM BARR: Well it’s hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they’re appalling. And if the shoe were on the other–
JAN CRAWFORD: Appalling.
WILLIAM BARR: Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damningand I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that “Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that.” You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don’t think we would be hearing a lot more about it?
JAN CRAWFORD: You- I guess when you said that there were things done that were not the typical run of business, ad hoc, small group, it’s not how these counterintelligence operations normally work. I think that maybe Comey and others might say well this was such an extraordinary thing we had to keep it so closely held. So we had to do it differently what’s your response to that? Is that legit?
WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus
JAN CRAWFORD: So did you ask the president for authority to declassify?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: You asked the president?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes and also you know, the direction of the intelligence agencies to support our efforts.
JAN CRAWFORD: So did you discuss this with the DNI and head of the CIA?
WILLIAM BARR: Yes.
JAN CRAWFORD: And what’s their response?
WILLIAM BARR: That they’re going to be supportive.
JAN CRAWFORD: And so you won’t will you declassify things without reviewing it with them it seems like you have the authority to do that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well in an exceptional circumstance I have that authority but obviously I intend to consult with them. I’m amused by these people who make a living by disclosing classified information, including the names of intelligence operatives, wringing their hands about whether I’m going to be responsible in protecting intelligence sources and methods.
I’ve been in the business as I’ve said for over 50 years long before they were born and I know how to handle classified information and I believe strongly in protecting intelligence sources and methods. But at the same time if there is information that can be shared with the American people without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods that decision should be made and because I will be involved in finding out what the story was I think I’m in the best decision to make that decision
JAN CRAWFORD: I know you’ve seen some of the criticism and the push back on- on this. Do you have any concerns that doing this investigation, talking about de-classifying certain materials- that that’s undermining your credibility or the credibility of the department?
WILLIAM BARR: No I- I don’t. I think it’s- actually the reaction is somewhat strange. I mean normally–
JAN CRAWFORD: Strange?
WILLIAM BARR: Sure.
JAN CRAWFORD: Their reaction?
WILLIAM BARR: Well the media reaction is strange. Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is. And usually the media doesn’t care that much about protecting intelligence sources and methods. But I do and I will.
JAN CRAWFORD: You are only the second Attorney General in history who’s served twice. I think the first one was back in 1850.
WILLIAM BARR: Right.
JAN CRAWFORD: But you are working for a man who is- I mean you are an establishment figure in a way. You’ve had a long career in Washington but you are working for a man who is not establishment. And some of his tweets about officials and the rule of law, how do you react when you see those? Are you on Twitter? Do you read his tweets?
WILLIAM BARR: No, I am not on Twitter and every once in a while a tweet is brought to my attention but my experience with the president is, we have- we have a good working, professional working relationship. We, you know, we talk to each other and if he has something to say to me I figure he’ll tell me directly. I don’t look to tweets for, you know, I don’t look at them as directives or as official communications with the department.
JAN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it’s like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What’s your response to that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.
JAN CRAWFORD: You did?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that’s antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.
JAN CRAWFORD: You are at the end of your career, or?
WILLIAM BARR: I am at the end of my career. I’ve you know–
JAN CRAWFORD: Does it, I mean, it’s the reputation that you have worked your whole life on though?
WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, but everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?
JAN CRAWFORD: So you don’t regret taking the job?
WILLIAM BARR: No.
JAN CRAWFORD: Not even today?
WILLIAM BARR: I’d rather, in many ways, I’d rather be back to my old life but I think that I love the Department of Justice, I love the FBI, I think it’s important that we not, in this period of intense partisan feeling, destroy our institutions. I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying that it’s President Trump that’s shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that, it is hard, and I really haven’t seen bill of particulars as to how that’s being done. From my perspective the idea of resisting a democratically elected president and basically throwing everything at him and you know, really changing the norms on the grounds that we have to stop this president, that is where the shredding of our norms and our institutions is occurring.
JAN CRAWFORD: And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially?
WILLIAM BARR: I am concerned about that.”
[Transcript End]

Dear MAGA: 20190531 Open Topic

This FIND A FRIEND PARLAYING IN THE PARLER ON FRIDAY open thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.

You can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on.

Free Speech is practiced here. ENJOY IT. Use it or lose it.

Keep it SOMEWHAT civil. They tried to FORCE fake Orwellian civility on us. In response, we CHOOSE true civility to defend our precious FREEDOM from THEM.

Our rules began with the civility of the Old Treehouse, later to become the Wolverinian Empire, and one might say that we have RESTORED THE OLD REPUBLIC – the early high-interaction model of the Treehouse – except of course that Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged, and speech is considerably freer in other ways. Please feel free to argue and disagree with the board owner, as nicely as possible.

Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the January 1st open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven.


And remember – while President Trump and his dear Family are traveling to Islamist-occupied IngSoc, they need to hear a chorus of MAGA BLESSING and PROTECTION:

“I AM PRAYING FOR YOU!”


OK – I forgot Wheaties Rules, except the one I always forget about bringing enough for everybody!

Moving along…..


Brad Parscale, Trump’s campaign manager, apparently showed interest in a social media site that is MOSTLY like Twitter, but with shades of Facebook, called Parler.

Trump’s Campaign Considers Creating a New Account on a Conservative Version of Twitter

Link: http://tennesseestar.com/2019/05/29/trumps-campaign-considers-creating-a-new-account-on-a-conservative-version-of-twitter/

Here is an exemplary post (don’t worry – a more “sign-up” type URL is given at the end).

https://share.par.pw/post/5f6d4f8769744059af89fd6c75969e46

Now, people generally know my affection for ALT-TECH leader Gab…

HOWEVER, not everybody is ready to rub shoulder’s with HILLARY’S BEST FAKE NAZIS, who – I must admit – get pretty tiresome pretty fast, no matter HOW one feels about free speech.

SO…..

Maybe Parler isn’t so bad for MAGA Normies who don’t like what they see on Gab. And there are some familiar faces on Parler, too!

And a bunch of us are already there!

So – give it a spin!

Go HERE to check it out.

https://home.parler.com

Note that you DO have to give an email, but there is no verification. Furthermore, they do have badges for Verified Influencers and Verified Real Names. So be careful when you sign up, if you DON’T want to use your real name – use a pseudonym instead.

Overall, EXTREMELY easy to use.

W

And ye shall know them by their logos.


Dear MAGA: 20190530 Open Topic

This THINKING OF WHERE EAGLES DARE TO GO THURSDAY open thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.

For Zoe’s benefit, the text:

PHC
May 29, 2019 at 18:37

Decision time for me………..
Continue the deterioration in what is becoming unbearable pain, or head to hospice where communication is limited.
Will say my goodbyes tonight, and check in tomorrow.

Liked by you and 4 other people

Patrick Henry Censored, May 29, 2019

You can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on.

Free Speech is practiced here. ENJOY IT. Use it or lose it.

Keep it SOMEWHAT civil. They tried to FORCE fake Orwellian civility on us. In response, we CHOOSE true civility to defend our precious FREEDOM from THEM.

Our rules began with the civility of the Old Treehouse, later to become the Wolverinian Empire, and one might say that we have RESTORED THE OLD REPUBLIC – the early high-interaction model of the Treehouse – except of course that Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged, and speech is considerably freer in other ways. Please feel free to argue and disagree with the board owner, as nicely as possible.

Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the January 1st open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven.


Remember the 5 words that President Trump and Vice President Pence love to hear:

I AM PRAYING FOR YOU!


Tonight, we pray most of all for our dear brother, Patrick Henry Censored, or PHC for short.

He runs ahead to where we follow.

wolfmoon1776
May 29, 2019 at 19:24

You do what’s best for you, Patrick. I only ask that you save a branch for us. We’ll be along shortly.

Liked by 3 people

PHC
May 29, 2019 at 19:28

A whole forest awaits, wolfmoon1776
I can see it, from my backyard.

Liked by you and 2 other people

wolfmoon1776
May 29, 2019 at 19:32

Dang it, I’m crying. Please stick around for tonight’s daily. I want to make sure everybody sees this.

Liked by 1 person

PHC
May 29, 2019 at 19:33

I can hold out for a couple of hours, wolfie
Liked by you and 2 other people

PHC and W, a short while ago

There are many other comments on Wednesday’s thread where this occurred:

https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/05/29/dear-maga-20190529-open-topic/comment-page-3/#comment-160489

But I add this one from bakocarl – perhaps his shortest poem:

bakocarl
May 29, 2019 at 19:14

As you know, PHC, God is with you and He will carry you when you are unable to walk.

You won’t go gentle in that good night,
But willingly, willingly into God’s Light.

Liked by you and 3 other people

bakocarl to PHC, this evening

With that, I put the Daily Thread up EARLY for once, and invite people to give PHC a hug.

W

May LIBERTY always be in our hearts. AMEN.

Rare Earth Elements, Geopolitics, and the Fight for Control of the World.

What is a Rare Earth Element?: Rare earth elements are a group of seventeen chemical elements that occur together in the periodic table (see image). The group consists of yttrium and the 15 lanthanide elements (lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, promethium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, and lutetium). Scandium is found in most rare earth element deposits and is sometimes classified as a rare earth element. Link
rare-earth-elements-periodic-table
How are rare earth elements used and why are they important?: The USA originally used “rare earth elements” when we started to make color television sets in the 1960’s. Europium was the essential material for producing the color images. The Mountain Pass Mine began producing europium from bastnasite, which contained about 0.1% europium. This effort made the Mountain Pass Mine the largest rare earth producer in the world and placed the United States as the leading producer. Link
“Rare earth metals and alloys that contain them are used in many devices that people use every day such as computer memory, DVDs, rechargeable batteries, cell phones, catalytic converters, magnets, fluorescent lighting and much more.” Link  During the past twenty years, there has been an explosion in demand for many items that require rare earth metals. Twenty years ago there were very few cell phones in use, but the number has risen to over 7 billion in use today. Link
uses-of-rare-earth-elements
Control over the commodity, “rare earth elements” became important for the economic health of the USA. The Italians built their empire, in part, based on the trade of salt. To the ancient Chinese, silk production gave them an advantage. The British Empire sailed the world for spices. Control over a highly desired commodity gives a country leverage, power, economic advantage, and creates the hegemons throughout history. The Chinese began to encroach on American advantage and our leaders did not protect this industry. We had it……and we didn’t fight to keep it.
Control the Commodity, Gain Advantage, Control the World: Beginning in the 1980’s, the Chinese returned to an age old strategy of cornering the market on a particular commodity, rare earth elements. Once the Chinese obtained significant control of these mines, they dropped the prices, and ran the American mines out of business. This is the “rinse and repeat” model for the Chinese as they adopted this philosophy across all industries, from common housewares to fabric production, and from stone to satellites.
The Chinese Model:  The Chinese gain a significant foothold in a particular industry. Then, via subsidies, they drop the prices to run all other competition out of business. Because the USA does not support industries or sectors in such a way, our manufacturing is ripe for the picking. Going forward, with no competition in sight, ….. the Chinese set the market price (prices have risen over 500%). Using this chart, we can begin to see the divergence between the USA and China, starting in the mid-80’s. By the late 90’s, China was setting the price. The USA…….. blinked.
rare-earth-elements-production-history
Other Commodities Worth Mentioning: China also looked beyond their borders to control world mines as demand increased for various resources. Cobalt and Lithium are NOT rare earth elements but the Chinese model is similar and worth mentioning in this context. Several POUNDS of rare earth elements are needed to manufacture electric car batteries. When lithium (used for cell phone batteries) and Cobalt (used for car batteries) were discovered in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the race for control over the mines began…. along with human rights abuses.
Somewhere between 35,000-40,000 children are excruciatingly exploited in these mines. Link  The video from this WaPost article of the mines will make your blood curdle. Link  While UK Daily Mail’s article focused on a 4yr old who worked in the mine, this Guardian article highlights a 7yr old. Link American Child Labor laws and OSHA mining safety requirements don’t exist when the Chinese come to play….. Because “trillions are at stake” and because Control = Power.
The Election of President Trump Presents a Problem for the Chinese: With the election of Donald Trump to the US Presidency and the confrontation of illicit Chinese trade practices dominating our headlines, the Chinese have resorted to their old playbook. Those rascally Chinese still think we’re stupid and/or Donald Trump is the same as other US Presidents….. Surprise!
China, once again, is threatening to withhold rare earth elements in the recent trade tension with the USA. The business channel pundits are in full meltdown because the prospect of their IPhone upgrade is in danger. Yet, WE ARE THE NEWS, now, and we remember the last time the Chinese played this card. To understand this recent threat from China, we need context and the history of the LAST TIME China tried to extort Japan in the same way.
No, it’s not the first time China has taken such a position. They tried it with Japan back in 2010, when China controlled 95% of the world market. Why aren’t the pundits telling us about the same Chinese playbook? Back in 2010, prices rose another 10% globally because of China’s extortion and the dust-up with Japan. The issue was taken up by the WTO and China was forced to begin exporting once more. Does China think we have forgotten their past deeds? Link  Well, apparently the pundits have forgotten.
We also remember how the world reacted to the Chinese extortion over rare earth elements. Other countries began to search for additional resources. This chart shows China’s rise in rare earth elements and their subsequent decline as other countries became wise to Chinese treachery.
rare-earth-oxide-production-by-country
 
Look at the bottom right of the chart. See the rise of Australia right after the dust-up of 2010? Look at the top left of the chart. See the elimination of the USA after we let China into the WTO in 2001? Coincidence?
What you DO NOT SEE is Japan’s reaction…… yet, or more precisely, Japan’s search for a consistent supply of rare earth elements for their economy. Keep in mind, China is the #1 consumer of rare earths, Japan is #2, and the USA (was) #3.  Link
So, where do you find rare earth elements? They’re sometimes formed from volcanic activity, but mostly they were formed from the supernova during the creation of the earth. Over millions of years, wind and weather eroded the mountains, which is why these elements are scattered across the earth. To find these elements in concentrated abundance is rare. To find an undisturbed cache of rare earth elements, it makes sense to look in a place which has remain undisturbed for millions of years….. the earth’s crust….. which is exactly where the Japanese went looking.
5ad0bbd3146e7129008b4819-960-619
See this picture above? Take a look at the date of the photo from Reuters. “Yasuhiro Kato, an associate professor of earth science at the University of Tokyo, displays a mud sample extracted from the depths of about 4,000 metres (13,123 ft) below the Pacific ocean surface where rare earth elements were found, at his laboratory in Tokyo July 5, 2011. REUTERS/Yuriko Nakao”
That’s right, July 5, 2011. After the dust-up of 2010, the Japanese went looking for their own supply of rare earth elements…… and Japan found them. I’m not just guessing Japan targeted their own supply of natural rare earth elements, CNBC and Reuters were reporting on it back in 2014. Link
The study says Japan found 16 million tons. Here is the study – heavy on the technical, make a pot of coffee to get through it all.  Link
“The cache lies off of Minamitori Island, about 1,150 miles southeast of Tokyo. It’s within Japan’s exclusive economic zone, so the island nation has the sole rights to the resources there.”  “There’s enough yttrium to meet the global demand for 780 years, dysprosium for 730 years, europium for 620 years, and terbium for 420 years.”  Link
 
 
From mid-2018. “This is a game changer for Japan,” Jack Lifton, a founding principal of a market-research firm called Technology Metals Research,  Link.   A game changer. Ya’ think? Since rare earth elements are needed for manufacture in the fastest growing segment of all global economies, the procurement of rare earths would be quite important. ……… And a good relationship with countries who produce/control a large supply of rare earth elements would be a good thing…… right?
d
Dearest China, tell me again….., tell me how stupid you think the Americans are……
And to the business pundits, who ignore their own prior reporting on these discoveries, mislead the public, create tension and discord, while President Trump is dealing with China on trade negotiations…… shame on you.
And one more thing, since I’ve mounted the soapbox. Let’s speculate, as our dearest business pundits love to do. If the President and his administration can clear enough red tape to allow the build of an 11 billion dollar LNG port in a swamp in Cameroon Parish, Louisiana, in about 18 months, how long do we think it would take for the Trump Administration to PLOW THE ROAD for mining to continue at USA facility – Mountain Pass Mine in California.
Mountain_Pass_900x500
Note: the company who owned Mountain Pass, Molycorp, took a 1.7 BILLION dollar loss because of Chinese subsidies, running competition out of the market, and the company went bankrupt in 2015 – selling the mine for 20.5 Million dollars —- yes, our leaders were stupid.) Link   You won’t believe this BUT, at one point, Mountain Pass produced 50K tons/yr and sent the minerals TO CHINA for processing…… yes, that’s how stupid our leaders were.
Yes, Americans remember. We never forget. We are the news now!
We remember well. For me, it was 6th grade, Social Studies, when we studied South America. I had to report on the country of Chile. Mandated by Mrs. Dodson, my teacher, necessary on our reports were the locations of copper, silver, iron ore, and bauxite (necessary for aluminum production) mines, as well as other natural resources, rich and abundant fisheries, and historical versus modern trading routes. Carrying the “bigger than me” white poster board to school to present my project was cumbersome. I lost one of the silver dimes glued on to represent a Chilean silver mine…. distressing to a 6th grader, and the goldfish crackers I glued off the coastline, to represent fisheries, were broken. I grumbled. Mrs. Dodson, surely was unreasonable, making us do these extravagant reports about a far away country, and mines wherein I had no interest………. Little did I know……..
Thank you, Mrs. Dodson.
We would be remiss, however, if we did not consider ALL locations for natural resources. Right? Think bigger. Have you ever heard the name Naveen Jain? He was an Indian national who came to the USA with $5 in his pocket. He wants to mine the moon. It’s an estimated 16 QUADRILLION worth of metals. His companies name is Moon Express. Link
…….. And just think…… we were puzzled when President Trump and Prime Minister Abe talked about going to the Moon and Mars together. Does it all make sense now?
spaceforce
It’s all possible with great leaders.
End.
 

Dear MAGA: 20190529 Open Topic

This WELCOME HOME WEDNESDAY open thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.

You can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on.

Free Speech is practiced here. ENJOY IT. Use it or lose it.

Keep it SOMEWHAT civil. They tried to FORCE fake Orwellian civility on us. In response, we CHOOSE true civility to defend our precious FREEDOM from THEM.

Our rules began with the civility of the Old Treehouse, later to become the Wolverinian Empire, and one might say that we have RESTORED THE OLD REPUBLIC – the early high-interaction model of the Treehouse – except of course that Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged, and speech is considerably freer in other ways. Please feel free to argue and disagree with the board owner, as nicely as possible.

Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the January 1st open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven.


Remember the 5 words that President Trump and Vice President Pence love to hear:

I AM PRAYING FOR YOU!


AND WHAT TIME IS IT? TIME TO….

DRAIN THE SWAMP

Our movement

Is about replacing

A failed

And CORRUPT

Political establishment

With a new government controlled

By you, the American People.

Candidate Donald J. Trump

Also remember Wheatie’s Rules:

  1. No food fights.
  2. No running with scissors.
  3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

I’m very happy that our VSGPOTUS got to spend this time in Japan. Very few countries BROADEN THE MIND like Japan. Taking part in this changing of the guard in the Japanese royal family is truly historic – a great honor and I’m sure a great blessing for both nations.

This is exemplary of the positive future that can be had in a world with RESPONSIBLE NATIONS learning to get along with each other, while sticking up for the good of their own peoples!

With all that said, however, it’s still REALLY GOOD to have our VSG back home.

For LOTS of reasons!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And what’s even better – all the GREAT NEWS while President Trump was away, means he can just hit the ground running.

There’s only one term for that. TOO MUCH WINNING!


I’d like to take a moment and thank OUR FLEP for those great news roundups. These things are a true service to MAGA, and I’m quite proud that we have such REAL NEWS here.

THREE CHEERS FOR FLEP!


So – now it’s time to roll up our sleeves, FOLD OUR ARMS, and get to work on those nasty FINAL PROBLEMS!

Have a great Wednesday and LET’S MAGA!

W

Dear MAGA: 20190528 Open Topic

This TWO CATCH A THIEF TUESDAY open thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.

You can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on.

Free Speech is practiced here. ENJOY IT. Use it or lose it.

Keep it SOMEWHAT civil. They tried to FORCE fake Orwellian civility on us. In response, we CHOOSE true civility to defend our precious FREEDOM from THEM.

Our rules began with the civility of the Old Treehouse, later to become the Wolverinian Empire, and one might say that we have RESTORED THE OLD REPUBLIC – the early high-interaction model of the Treehouse – except of course that Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged, and speech is considerably freer in other ways. Please feel free to argue and disagree with the board owner, as nicely as possible.

Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the January 1st open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven.


Remember the 5 words that President Trump and Vice President Pence love to hear:

I AM PRAYING FOR YOU!


AND WHAT TIME IS IT? TIME TO….

DRAIN THE SWAMP

Our movement

Is about replacing

A failed

And CORRUPT

Political establishment

With a new government controlled

By you, the American People.

Candidate Donald J. Trump

Also remember Wheatie’s Rules:

  1. No food fights.
  2. No running with scissors.
  3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

Remember what Q said about CANKLES and BEELZEBUBBA? Our TREASONOUS former White House landlords who HELPED the Chinese military for CASH?

I was trying to think what this meant.

Well, now I know what it DOES mean. DISINFORMATION.

The only reason I figured this out was DISCERNMENT, which involved first SKEPTICISM of social media, THANKS TO FAKE NEWS, and then trust in LOCAL MEDIA, which provides REAL NEWS.

The Democrats have been playing tricks on us. They are also FLAILING and hoping we don’t figure out what’s going on.

Let’s begin with the charge of the “doctored video”:

This is actually some rather extraordinary propaganda, and people need to keep an eye on the names of these reporters, because I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot more BULLSHIT from them.

First of all, let me just say that I found it weird as hell that the left suddenly announces this doctored video and then refuses to take it down, which is their usual tactic. That just seemed very unlikely.

Why are they leaving it up? To appear “fair”? To appear non-censorious? And then they take down that anti-MAGA HAT art on Facebook? I don’t get it. Something is weird about what they’re doing right now.

To me, they’re FLAILING. Jerking us one way, and then another. CONFUSION.

But then I actually saw both the “undoctored” and “doctored” videos on OAN, and was really confused, because I found the ALLEGEDLY DOCTORED ONE more understandable and less slurred than the ALLEGEDLY UNDOCTORED ONE. Also, there seemed to be weird lighting differences that made one of them more blue than the other.

Frankly, it looked to me like nothing more than THE POWER OF SUGGESTION and a FORMAT CHANGE of the video by somebody’s plain old video software doing normal video software stuff. Speed up? Slow down? It was MICROSCOPIC IF AT ALL. Who cares? It’s almost not noticeable, and actually BACKWARDS to me.

It seemed more like PROPAGANDA than reality.

And to top it off, a PRISTINE VIDEO of the entire incident captured ON TV by our wonderful Karli Bonne – who uses the lowest of all possible technology by taking PHONE PICTURES OF HER TELEVISION – shows that frigging Nancy Pelosi appeared DRUNK or DEMENTED in the original footage itself – as aired on TV – with absolutely no possibility of dirty tricks.

Allow me to record both Karli’s tweets AND screen shots, since they are constantly throwing this woman off Twitter for her HILARIOUS real-time recorded TV viewing, which mercilessly mocks the Soviet Fake News.

Tweet:

https://twitter.com/kbq225/status/1131587536927825920

Picture:

Tweet:

https://twitter.com/kbq225/status/1131588335917572096

Picture:

So – the charge that Pelosi’s behavior was just due to a SLOWED VIDEO was clearly bullshit. BUT – and this is key – the whole affair left me suspicious. And that was GOOD.

Because then I saw this tweet here, in a VIGOROUS discussion of Hillary’s health…..

Which I have now saved as a screenshot:

And also saved the images:

First THIS ONE, in which a woman appears to be assisting Hillary Clinton and gripping stuff in one hand that LOOKS like it could be an epi-pen……

Kinda like “ARE YOU OK, HILLARY?”

And then THIS ONE, in which Hillary looks like she has some kind of TERMINAL PALLOR AND EDEMA….

People HERE were thinking the broad on the LEFT was actually CHELSEA CLINTON, all fat and preggers. HOLD THAT THOUGHT. But Hillary – WOW. Not exactly a flattering pic.

Folks – this looked like an open-and-shut case of #HillaryHealth.

People online were questioning whether it was even HILLARY, and falling YET AGAIN for the infamous STUNT DOUBLE DISINFORMATION THEORY….

Take a look at that vigorous discussion HERE: https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/05/27/dear-maga-20190527-open-topic/comment-page-2/#comment-158947

NOW – this all made me very suspicious. The old #HillaryHealth fight was FILLED with disinformation. At its height, Democrat shills covered up Hillary’s PILL-ROLLING TREMOR of her right index finger during Debate 1 with some theory about “secret scrolling” of hidden notes being shown to her on the podium.

Yeah – it can get that bad. One REALLY HAS TO DIG INTO THIS STUFF to find the truth.

So I blew up that second photo, and realized that the facial shape was really fairly unchanged, with just a lot of make-up on, and we were really dealing with apples and oranges. But still, she really looked a lot better in the speech photo, than she did in the parade photos.

The whole thing was starting to smell like the “power-of-suggestion disinformation” used against #HillaryHealth researchers back in the Parkinson’s days. BUT we still have to be careful.

Hillary really DID look bad in those two parade photos with the Tweet – which I suddenly suspected were DOCTORED.

I mean – COME ON – look at her! The woman looks like she has CANKLES OF THE FACE!

SO – off I go – happily – absolutely certain that this is a DOCTORED PHOTO of her – and looking for the originals.

So I start digging into search engines, and I find THIS photo:

What the heck???!!! She doesn’t look so bad here! Where did THIS picture come from?

This was a LOCAL reporter doing a story in Chappaqua. Let’s look more closely at that photo.

First of all, NO WAY is that Web Hubbell’s daughter! That is NOT Chelsea Clinton being towed along by CANKLES!

But then look at Granny Mao! She looks NOTHING like that terrible picture above!

SO – what I did next was to go looking for more pictures of Hillary from that parade, and I found a whole SLIDE-SHOW of them from this Tania Savayan gal. That slide-show was syndicated to a bunch of mainstream newspapers on the web.

I pulled out ALL the Hillary photos.

It was interesting, but try as I might, I could not find a bad image of Hillary in the slide show.

I then looked specifically back at the ORIGINAL ARTICLE in the LoHud. There, I found a VIDEO. You can see it below, scrolled to the “best” (meaning clearest) picture of Hillary.

Looking more closely:

I’m sorry – she just doesn’t look that bad in ANY of these “good” (clear) photos from the rally. Sure, a little sag, a little aging, a little “I’m going for a walk in the morning and yeah I’m not exactly looking like I just left the stylist.” But it just ain’t that bad.

Here is the ABSOLUTE WORST FRAME from that video, blown up. What I did was CATCH Hillary in the middle of speaking while walking, so that I could get the WORST POSSIBLE FACE.

I mean, I made this woman just look ILL. That’s right. “ILLARY!”

Compare that again to the “bad Hillary picture” from the tweet that started this:

To me, this picture was CHOSEN to make Hillary look BAD. It MAY be doctored, but why doctor pictures when SELECTION of bad frames from videos provides both WHATEVER YOU WANT and AUTHENTICITY AS WELL? Or maybe it’s just a bad still picture selected from a bunch of them.

The point is – NOT FLATTERING.

And we KNOW there were plenty of more flattering pictures available. No excuse to publish this one.

So who is this David Buchwald guy? Hey! He’s the guy in the picture with Cankles!

More closely….

His picture from Twitter….

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/441312201098661890/yVkIDAD0_400x400.jpeg

Now – am I saying that he INTENTIONALLY tweeted out a USABLY BAD picture of Hillary?

Just like Q predicted?

Well, he followed THAT tweet with two retweets of other people’s LESS BAD photos of Hillary:

SO – if one analyzes the situation without any accounting for DECEPTION, then it just looks like AW SHUCKS he picked an unfortunate video grab and “some aide will require some discipline” or something like that. Because RETWEETS prove he “DINDU NUFFINS”.

Riiiiiiight?

BUT – if you realize that PUTTING his tweet in front of EXACTLY THE RIGHT PEOPLE means that the RIGHT PEOPLE are going to go “OMG – look at Hillary! POOR SICK HILLARY!”…….

Are you starting to see how this works?

We were SUCKERED, people. AS Q WARNED US.

That Q guy who knows ALL ABOUT TWITTER.

Are you starting to see why the incestuous relationship of Social Media and the DNC actually MATTERS?

Are you starting to see how the combination of OPAQUE ALGORITHMS and DATA WITH HIDDEN PAYLOAD and SECRET TREATIES means HIDDEN TARGETED INFLUENCE?

I’m just going to leave it there.

Think about it.

W

Memorial Day Remembrance


Note from Wolf: This post, under a different title that I don’t remember, went up last night, but was taken down by the author due to a misunderstanding between Authors. It went into the TRASH, where it did not belong, and then went into DRAFTS, where it cannot get the attention that it deserves NOW.

Thus, I take a rare BOARD OWNER prerogative to post it NOW.

It is my habit, at the Memorial Day parade I always attend, to RESCUE and BRING HOME those tiny, cheap American flags that get dropped on the ground for one reason or another. Sometimes broken, sometimes forgotten, sometimes dropped by a baby or stolen by a happy dog. It doesn’t matter why. I pick them up, bring them home, and THOSE FLAGS take the place of honor as my most important flags for the coming year.

If you think that’s a message, then I hope you read this post. Treat any imperfections as the ones found in Navajo rugs – proof of authenticity, and recognition of the Creator.

-W


When I was a young boy my father, who was an aviation enthusiast, would take me to airshows, and he passed his passion on to me. As far back as I can remember I have loved ANYTHING to do with flight. I would spend hours and days gluing together Revell model airplanes that I bought with money I made mowing lawns and doing chores, painstakingly painting them as accurately as I could using pictures from magazines and books, then hang them from the ceiling in my bedroom. At night after I went to bed, I would stare up at them and imagine myself being one of the pilots of these awesome machines.

Back in those days, the new heros of flight were the Mercury and Apollo astronauts…but they themselves came from the ranks of men who willingly strapped themselves into several tons of finely machined metal and dared to challenge the harsh and unforgiving ethers above the earth.

For me, both then and now, this was where GIANTS tread.

Men of such courage, ability, fortitude, and character that today their feats are FAR too many to list here, their accomplishments and sacrifices SO IMPOSSIBLY GREAT…so well known….worldwide….that even a shmuck like me is granted some of the respect THEY earned…..simply because I, too, am a pilot.

Bullshit. I am not even a pimple, ON A pimple, on such men’s behinds. Reread that.

It is not an exaggeration to say that most of today’s federal aviation regulations are written in blood. Hard lessons learned and iron-clad rules set in place from tragic circumstances that cost people their lives….and most of those came from the blood of military pilots and test pilots. For one thing, you must remember that for most of avaiation history aircraft design was done BY HAND…there were no computer models/modeling to test equipment before it was tried out for the first time in actual flight….all too often at the cost of a courageous man’s life. Back in those days, HALF of all US test pilots lost their lives. 50% of them!

Then, too, there were the combat pilots…especially those of the 40’s through the 60’s. This was the time when piston-driven aircraft had reached the limit of that kind’s performance, followed by the subsequent birth of turbine engines (jets) that would rocket man beyond the speed of sound. Try as I might, I cannot possibly convey to you how dangerous and challenging these times were for the young men who had the fortitude, courage and ability to face the odds and learn how to push the edge of a high performance aircraft’s envelope…to do that IN COMBAT…and try to survive.

However, there is one statistic that might give you some idea, some inkling, of how dangerous it was in those days.

Think of all the kinds of combat taking place in WWII. Sailors, marines, army. Submarines, for example, where one small breach of the hull at depth would send the vessel and all aboard into the crushing pressure of the deep. Or how about soldiers and marines in landing craft, daring to land on a beach while facing a hail of enemy gun fire and artillery as they rushed through the open to try and find some kind of cover and survive. Brave, courageous men….all of them!

That said, of all the different types of armed combat during WWII, which one was the most dangerous for the US serviceman….the one with the greatest casualties out of them all?

Was it the virtually fearless US marines landing on islands across the pacific, facing the fanatical Japanese? How about our troops going up against the Nazis in places like Bastogne? Or the aforementioned submariner forces in the Atlantic and Pacific?

Nope.

The single most dangerous combat job during WWII was to be a crew member of the US 8th Army Air Corps…the Mighty 8th…flying daylight combat missions over occupied Europe. Of ALL combat units of ALL types and service branches during WWII, the Mighty 8th suffered the highest casualty rates of the entire war.

In fact, it was SO bad…so incredibly dangerous….so UNLIKELY for someone to survive….that the US high command instituted….for the very first (but not the last) time….a maximum number of combat missions to be flown before a crew member was deemed to have fulfilled his wartime service obligation and get sent home.

The magic number? 25 combat missions.

Just 25.

Sounds easy, eh? Well, statistically speaking, every single person who stepped into an Mighty 8th airplane and flew combat missions over occupied Europe would get killed by the 13th mission, if not sooner. So they took that number and doubled it to 25, with the belief that if you could survive 25 missions, you earned the right to be honorably discharged and sent home.

And just to drive the point home…no other military occupation across all branches of service was afforded this priviledge. They called it “The Mighty 8th”, but in reality it was the Bloody 8th.

WATCH….

At 25,000 feet….5 miles above the earth….the altitude most World War II bomber missions were flown….air temperature ranges from -30° to -45°F. Modern aircraft have sealed cabins and heaters to protect pilots and passengers from wind blast and cold air. Not the crews of WWII. Pressurized cabins hadn’t been invented yet, and it wasn’t until the development of the B-29 (of “Enola Gay” fame) that bombers had such a luxury.

If the enemy fire and flak didn’t get you, the lack of oxygen and/or cold air could….and all too often did.

Have a look at this chart…these guys were regularly flying in the dark blue and purple parts at the right side. Note the amount of time it takes for exposed flesh to suffer frostbite.

Moreover, where can you take cover in a thin aluminum skinned aircraft? A: you couldn’t.

These planes had no armor…THAT was too heavy…and that weight was needed for the bombs and defensive machine guns. There were no foxholes or brick walls or trees to hide behind. No, you were stuck there, with your proverbial ass hanging out in the breeze, hoping it didn’t get shot off…that you could make your 25 missions in one piece and go home.

Here…have a look…this is not too far off from what it was like. See if you can count ALL the dangers present in this short clip…

Mind shattering.

My point is simply this.

This weekend we historically honor those who have lost their lives in service to our country. And I wanted to give you a taste of the dangers some of them faced and all too often fell prey to.

They did it for us, the next generations to come. They did it because they loved America, for the deepest and most cherished hopes they had for this country, and all this country has historically stood for.

It is for such heros….who fought and died to establish, protect, and grow our nation…that we honor and remember their sacrifices this weekend.

And some do it every day, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

No. Matter. What.

Today, some of America’s finest young warriors have emerged to carry forward the legacy of the men and women who came before them. And they have put their creed into word and sealed it with their own blood, spilled often and only rarely known by us.

This is their sacred code….written with the sacrifices of all those who came before them firmly in mind….

This weekend is a weekend of the fiercest PRIDE…

….of the most breathtaking AWE….

….of inexpressible GRATITUDE…

…..and undying APPRECIATION…

…..for all those who have ever fought and died to establish, protect and defend our great nation. The greatest nation the world has ever known.

To be an American is nothing less than knowing that, regardless of your personal circumstances, we are among the Lord God Almighty’s most highly favored children. And this is NOT our “right”. No. It is a terrible privilege of the most profound kind.

We live among GIANTS. And their legacy is ours.

Dear MAGA: 20190527 Open Topic

This Memorial Day Monday Open Thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.

This is a day when we honor our fallen warriors, who…along with their families…have sacrificed so much, so that we can enjoy the freedoms that we have.

little-kid-crying-dad-funeral-soldier

EagleOnGravestone

tomb-of-the-unknown

Widow-of-fallen-Warrior

fallen-soldiers-fallen-heroes

loyaldog

EagleMourns

Our Nation owes a debt of gratitude to our fallen warriors…and to our wounded warriors.

Even though they do not ask for thanks, we can never thank them enough.

………………………………………………………………………

Free Speech is practiced here at the Q Tree. In fact, our host Wolfmoon encourages us to use it…and Enjoy it. “Use it or lose it”, he tells us.
But please keep it civil. Discussion of Q is not only allowed but encouraged. Imagine that! We can talk about Q here and not get banned.
Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the January 1st open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven that Wolf has created for us.

Remember – your greatest gift to President Trump is FIVE WORDS:

I AM PRAYING FOR YOU.

Donald Trump Holds Campaign Rally In Anaheim, CA

Wheatie’s Rules:

  1. No food fights.
  2. No running with scissors.
  3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

……………………………………………………………………….

For your listening enjoyment, I offer this composition from Dwayne Ford, titled ‘When Soldiers Come Home’:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYXC1ZOmPDQ&w=640&h=360]

……………………………………………

 

Dear MAGA: 20190526 Open Topic


This very special
Stripping Away the Veils SUNDAY
open thread

is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody
to post whatever they feel they would like
to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.


Say what you want, comment on what other people said,
comment on people’s comments.
Keep it civil.  Treehouse rules, but expect lots of QAnon.


See the January 1st daily thread for the rules of the road,
which are few but important.


Remember – your greatest gift to President Trump is FIVE WORDS:
I AM PRAYING FOR YOU

TRUMP_Schumer_SocialistNation


Let’s Begin by Giving Thanks for Our Military Forces

“Today, as we unite in eternal gratitude for the sacrifices of these extraordinary Americans, let us also offer a prayer for lasting peace.”

Link: Proclamation on Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 2019 on WhiteHouse.gov

Proclamation of Peace p1Proclamation of Peace p2


statue-angelic-art-gril-and-boy-566641.jpg

Stripping Away the Veils Sunday

A conversation yesterday on the Open Thread turned to observations on how America ended up where we find ourselves today. A faint shadow of the free people we became after throwing off the shackles of Britain and pioneering a new life in the New World.

We appear to have just avoided a point of no return outcome and now must not only fight out way back but engineer the safeguards to preserve that hard won place of restored freedom.

Most people do not understand the true nature of conspiracy. They will think “everybody knows everything, or nobody knew anything”. They have been made to think like CHILDREN by the Cabal.
— from comment where Wolfmoon points out we have been blinded.

The reply from Kalbo summed up so many important points, I’m quoting it all.

It’s a whole new paradigm being exposed, or some better word…perhaps as simple as TRUTH coming to LIGHT for all to see.
At the behest of Globalists, politicos with their adoring MCM have been feeding everyone well orchestrated BS for decades.
President Trump was drafted expressly to end the US’ slide into oblivion…but a memory or footnote in history.
MCM, Globalists, Uniparty knew this and tried to sabotage his campaign, and Presidency. Pure lies foisted on us from the highest levels. Truth comes out. MCM and Uniparty BUSTED. Half of America, seemingly shocked. But they now know the truth about muh Russia.
For three years President Trump has been extolling the sheer ignorance of trade deals forced on us by crooked complicit Presidents – Papa Bush, Slick Willy, Baby Bush, and hussein. President Trump blatantly calls out the STUPIDITY of trade agreements and climate BS…
The truth is obvious, we were sold a line of sh!t. And America was taking it all as gospel. America was sliding away…there is no magic wand, no more manufacturing, we’ll be a service economy…
Wars are not necessary to win. The US does not need to interfere militarily around the globe to gain positive results. Let countries take ownership and their fix their own issues to secure their future. Allow regional countries to leverage their influence.
MIC has been exposed and has lost great influence. Thankfully no name is toast. MS Lindsey and her ilk are throttled back a bit. No longer is the US footing the massive defense bill for countries we protect.
Globally, the US has the greatest leverage of all. Economic. President Trump is wielding that economic club with brilliance and precision. Winning across the spectrum of of the economy and broader issues.
More Internationally, countries around the globe are waking up to Nationalism and associated pride. Driving their focus to their roots. US, Britain, Australia, Italy… Many, many more countries. Nationalism is contagious.
The EU is thankfully disintegrating. Germany will be cast aside for the damage they’ve inflicted. France is waking up.
Inquiring minds may wonder…back home.
With all of the economic winning, in every category, why has the MCM not trumpeted (no pun intended), how utterly stupid and destructive trade agreements were. America First is the obvious answer.
Economic leverage the obvious answer to encourage other countries to behave, be fair…
MIC destroys lives, countries and is a perpetual self licking ice cream come of destruction.
Reply to Wolfmoon by Kalbo

The warning could not be more emphatic.

BEWARE THE SIGNS OF BEING MADE INTO AN UNTHINKING PATRIOT BY FAKE NEWS. THEY DID IT BEFORE – THEY WILL TRY IT AGAIN.
— from comment where Wolfmoon describes how our pride was used to blind us.

We must not miss this warning!


See to it that no one takes you captive
through philosophy and empty deception [pseudo-intellectual babble],
according to the tradition [and musings] of mere men,
following the elementary principles of this world,
rather than following [the truth—the teachings of] Christ.

Colossians 2:8, AMP

3 monkeys. See no evil. Hear no evil. Say no evil.


“‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Matthew 6:13

Our protection against deception is to ruthlessly reject any and everything that is not 100% true. No matter who says it. Not even our favorite Christian leader. Not even our favorite governmental leader.
It’s something you set your mind to be. Choose to love the truth even when it leads where you do not want to go.

Dear Lord, I say yes, strip away the veils over my eyes. I say yes, grant me the grace to see with Your eyes all that is truly around me. I say yes, draw me ever more deeply into Your truth every day. In Christ’s Name. Amen.

When we choose to open our eyes and see the reality around us we will not be popular. It may become uncomfortable to be around us–even when we don’t open our mouths. And I say, bring it on.
Think*3


modern-statue-white-rabbit-with-timepiece-149290

Dear MAGA: 20190525 Open Topic

Welcome! Come on in, the doors are open.

DoorsArched

Come on up and find a comfy spot:

f90af1f06948f5ce3e6cc9460dcfea14

This Saving Our Republic Saturday Open Thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.
Free Speech is practiced here at the Q Tree. In fact, our host Wolfmoon encourages us to use it…and Enjoy it. “Use it or lose it”, he tells us.
But please keep it civil. Discussion of Q is not only allowed but encouraged. Imagine that! We can talk about Q here and not get banned.
Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the January 1st open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven that Wolf has created for us.

Remember – your greatest gift to President Trump is FIVE WORDS:

I AM PRAYING FOR YOU.

TrumpPodiumRoseGarden

Wheatie’s Rules:

  1. No food fights.
  2. No running with scissors.
  3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

………………………………………………………

For your listening enjoyment, I offer this composition from Ivan Torrent, titled ‘Skyborn’:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KsJFv0pXCk&w=640&h=360]

…………………………………………………………..

Visual descriptions for our dear Zoe, and for anyone else who may find them helpful:
Header Image: Is a view of a lone Knight on a white horse, slowly approaching on a pathway leading to a gigantic Tree. The enormous Tree is the size of a skyscraper, with a gnarled trunk and huge branches. There is a rough hillside in front of the tree…so we cannot see the base of it. Some stone ruins are off to the side of the Tree.
In the distance are some other gigantic Trees, which give us an idea of the scale of the one that the Knight is approaching. It is a sunny day with blue sky overhead and there are fluffy white clouds in the distance.
Second Image: Is a set of arched doors that come to a pointed arch at the top. One of the doors is slightly ajar. There is ornate scrolled iron-work on the doors at their hinges, that covers quite a bit of each door. A large metal circle serves as the handle on one door…the other door has a metal gate across the lower half.
There is a stone path and couple of stone steps in front of the doors. There is ivy and green vegetation all around the door frame. Above the top of the doors, is a stone carving of a circular emblem of some sort. Sunlight is streaming down on this stone emblem and onto the steps leading up to the doors.
Third Image: Is an open lounge with a view, filled with comfy-looking couches and over-stuffed chairs. There are lanterns all around, on the tables, on the guard rails and on out of the way places on the floor. There is a round free-standing stucco fireplace, with a warm-looking fire crackling within it. Large branches serve as supports for the ceiling, with cross-branches forming the structure for the ceiling.
Fourth Image: Is our President, standing at a podium in the Rose Garden at the White House. He has a slight scowl on his face, as he is dealing with the press weasels…and looks like he would rather be somewhere else. He is wearing a dark blue suit with dark blue striped tie and there is flag pin on his lapel.
Fifth Image: Is our Attorney General William Barr, looking forward with a no-nonsense, determined look on his face. Caption underneath: “Come on, Honey Badger…release the Kraken!”

……………………………………………………………

william-barr
Come on, Honey Badger…release the Kraken!