Last week, two attempted cover-ups by government officials were exposed within days of each other.
The first cover-up was laid bare through the perseverance of defense attorney, Sidney Powell, who pried loose records that showed the FBI deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence in the case of Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former National Security Adviser. For years, the FBI stiff-armed Flynn’s defense team, when it sought FBI files that would clear Flynn of any criminal wrongdoing. Once those files were obtained and the FBI’s misconduct was exposed for all to see, the DOJ dropped its case faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
In the second cover-up, acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, forced House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Adam Schiff, to release unclassified transcripts of 57 interviews the committee had with government officials in 2017 and 2018. The interviews put the lie to Schiff’s repeated public allegations that Trump colluded with the Russians. Instead of proving alleged Trump-Russia collusion, high-ranking officials from the Obama administration testified that there wasn’t any evidence of such a conspiracy.
It is abundantly clear why President Trump and Michael Flynn’s political opponents fought so hard to prevent evidence from being released that would clear the two men. The partisan hacks were busy trumpeting Trump and Flynn’s guilt to a receptive press corps, when they knew all along that the documentation they were sitting on said otherwise. This tells you all you need to know about their treachery and hypocrisy.
The two news reports appear to be precursors to what is expected to be a series of indictments stemming from the lengthy investigation by the Justice Department into potential criminal abuse by FBI and DOJ law enforcement officials, who appear to have wielded their immense power over a period of years to take down a sitting president and his associates…
Willful blindness to public safety has been a part of corporate “best practices” culture for decades if not centuries. And if that isn’t innovative enough, the resultant medico-pharmaceutical cleanup operations further boost economic productivity.
Not long ago, the author wrote an article about the White House’s “royal gift”, in the form of new US Ambassador Julie Fisher, to Belarus, and pointed out that her appointment was very much in line with Washington’s recent policy to “strengthen” the leadership in its diplomatic missions with individuals with considerable experience in the military-strategic sphere and in staging coups.
And finally, Ukraine’s turn has come. After all, the nation has repeatedly asked US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (also during his visit to Kyiv in February) to send it a “good” Ambassador, who, in the end, will most likely be beneficial for the White House rather than Ukraine.
It is probably not worth pointing out that for Washington, Ukraine has long become an “enfant terrible”, as a result the White House’s treatment of it has come to resemble that of a “father towards a naughty child”. Washington has been open about its involvement in this nation’s affairs for some time now. In an interview with CNN on February 1, 2015, the US President at the time, Barack Obama, talked about “putting more pressure on Russia and bolstering Ukraine”. It is also worth reminding our readers about the fact that on December 2, 2014, the Parliament of Ukraine voted to appoint US citizen of Ukrainian descent Natalie Jaresko as the nation’s Minister of Finance. To this day, the decision has had a negative impact on Ukraine’s financial state. At the time, there were persistent rumors concerning the possibility that if Arseniy Yatsenyuk (who disappointed Washington by failing to implement IMF-approved reforms) were to leave his post, Natalie Jaresko could replace him as Prime Minister of Ukraine.
It is also important to remember that there was a succession of Ukrainian Presidents, such as Viktor Yushchenko and Petro Poroshenko, whose priorities directly depended on USA’s “fatherly concerns”. After all, Washington willingly took it upon itself to “bring order” to Ukraine after Maidan (civil unrest). For instance, the United States has been giving money to the Ukrainian government via various financial institutions; essentially, setting out policies for the leadership in Kyiv to follow, and lobbying to ensure the right people get appointed. The overly servile behavior exhibited by the Ukrainian establishment towards its US “advisors” is not surprising, as Washington is seemingly in charge of just about everything: from providing financial aid and giving direct orders to the Armed Forces of Ukraine to hiring personnel for intelligence services and appointing Defense Ministers, cabinet members and presidential staff.
Media outlets have also reported about USA’s influence on decision-making processes in Kyiv on more than one occasion. One only has to recall articles about the boastful statements made by former US Vice President Joe Biden about him strong-arming Petro Poroshenko to remove Ukrainian Prosecutor General from office. Previously, former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland said that the US had invested more than $5 billion to promote democracy in Ukraine since 1991. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (organizations suspected of having ties to the CIA) were some of the largest investors. They financed dozens of initiatives aimed at “supporting” Ukrainian political activists, non-profit organizations (NGOs) and media outlets.
As a result, individuals who seemingly look to the United States for advice have been in Ukraine for quite some time now. Finally, the time to appoint a new US Ambassador to Ukraine has come. And according to Donald Trump, retired Lieutenant General in the US Army Keith Dayton could soon take on this role. ….
2014-03-12 IMF Vultures Circling Over Ukraine
2014-04-02 Regime Change in Ukraine and the IMF’s Bitter “Economic Medicine”
2014-04-12 US imposing Mercenaries, IMF on Ukraine
2014-08-31 How the World Bank, IMF and Biden’s Son Plan to Dismantle Ukraine’s Economy
2014-09-16 The EU and IMF Rape of Ukraine Agriculture
2015-02-19 IMF Imposes Radical Energy Cost Increases on Ukraine
2015-06-23 IMF Violates IMF Rules, to Continue Ukraine Bailouts
If you are like me, you are looking forward to finally getting out of your house and maybe having a few drinks or a nice dinner at your local bar or restaurant. But going out to your local bar or restaurant once the lockdown ends comes with a steep price.
That’s because three cities, in Louisiana, Texas and Missouri, will only allow non-essential businesses to reopen if they agree to collect customers personal information.
According to NOLA Ready, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the city of New Orleans are creating a “new normal” by forcing bars and restaurants to collect customers personal information.
“We know everyone is eager to reopen. It’s not going back to normal; it’s what we’re calling ‘the new normal.’ It will be the data and not the date that drives not only the decision but the phased approach to reopen the City of New Orleans. Today, we are outlining what those guidelines will be for the City,” said Mayor Latoya Cantrell.
As Forbes.com explains the “new normal” is for bars and restaurants to become government snitches.
“New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell announced business owners will be required to keep logs of the names and contact information of patrons who enter their establishments once the Big Easy reopens to help with contact tracing—a move that Cantrell called part of the new normal, as New Orleans and Louisiana plan to rollback coronavirus restrictions this month.”
Two different articles in Nola.com reveal how DHS and the city of New Orleans plan to use COVID-19 contact tracing as an excuse to record customers personal information….
Something doesn’t smell right. The number of newly confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. each day has been declining, as has the number of deaths. This is great news, and we should be hoping that the falling numbers are a sign that the pandemic is beginning to subside. But the mainstream media has been relentlessly pumping out stories that warn of “disaster” if the lockdowns are lifted “too soon”. According to the mainstream media, by “ignoring science” we are inviting a “second wave” which will be even deadlier than the first one. And it is certainly true that as we end the lockdowns more people will get exposed to COVID-19, but right now I do not know of a single hospital in the entire country that is currently being overwhelmed by this pandemic. As long as our hospitals can handle it, there is no reason to continue the lockdowns.
But the mainstream media seems desperate to keep the lockdowns going, and so they keep telling us that we are “inviting disaster” by ending them. For example, the following comes from a New York Times article that was just published entitled “As States Rush to Reopen, Scientists Fear a Coronavirus Comeback”…
Millions of working people and small-business owners who cannot earn money while sheltering at home are facing economic ruin. So dozens of states, seeking to ease the pain, are coming out of lockdown.
Most have not met even minimal criteria for doing so safely, and some are reopening even as coronavirus cases rise, inviting disaster. The much-feared “second wave” of infection may not wait until fall, many scientists say, and instead may become a storm of wavelets breaking unpredictably across the country.
And this is how that article ended…
Having 50 states and more territories do competing and uncoordinated experiments in reopening is “daring Mother Nature to kill you or someone you love,” Dr. Frieden said. “Mother Nature bats last, and she bats a thousand.” …
I’m sure they’ll get their wish when the vitamin-d starved inmates of the national prison begin emerging from their cells.
U.S. professor of history at John Hopkins University, Mike Vlahos, in a series of short interviews with John Batchelor, tells us how Coronavirus has become a fiery pivot, pushing different leaders in the U.S. to take existential stands on how to deal with this virus. With various separate American states insisting to pursue directly polarised paths: Mandated ‘sheltering’ (the U.S. term for distancing) versus economic opening; States versus the Federal government; Blue versus Red; Dems versus GOP; ‘authoritarianism’ versus Laissez Faire and traditional American liberties – and now, internal state, Blue-Red conflicts (i.e. Ventura County versus California’s Governor, on the burning issue of open or closed beaches); and even, counties versus states.
Vlahos notes the point is that that the battleground, thanks to the virus, has turned existential. No more is Blue/Red just a crafted rhetorical flourish – It is embodied; it is of biological flesh; it cuts into flesh – even as the virus’ future is unknown. In fact, the unknown deepens fears. The choice: ‘food on the table’ in a re-opened the economy (even at the real risk of those ‘doctors of death’ returning), or to play safe, passively, with distancing. The collective psyche is split; passions are raised; weapons are flourished, and militia parade. This is not theatre: Its fervour is suffused into daily life: masks or not; socialise or not; work or not.
“The U.S. constitutional order is fissuring before our eyes: That we have skirted constitutional crisis for the past quarter century, is no reassurance: [as] each new test is yet more bitterly contested, and still less resolved”, Vlahos explains.
“Today, two irreconcilable visions of American life believe that they can continue only if they own the whole order”, Vlahos argues. “Yet, ours has been a shared constitutional order … The single-minded drive toward this goal – especially now by Blue state Democrats—has embrittled our constitutional order, and is creating the basis for a full-scale legitimacy crackup”.
The Executive – initially claiming sole authority over Covid practice – has backed down, in the face of governors asserting (correctly) that they enjoy co-sovereignty with the Federal government. The Blue and the Red governors – both – are at entirely cross-purposes, yet both are exercising their respective sovereignties – flagrantly.
Adding insult to the injury of Covid-19 closures, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced that businesses seeking emergency payroll funding will have to demonstrate their compliance with ‘climate change’ guidelines.
Citing the need to protect “Canadian middle-class jobs and safeguard our economy,” Trudeau on Monday rolled out the expansion of the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility (LEEFF), intended to provide bridge liquidity to companies unable to meet their payroll due to the shutdown.
There is, of course, a catch. Among the standard safeguards listed in the government announcement – limits on stock buybacks, verification of a company’s tax status, protections for unions and pensions, among other things – there was this as well:
“In addition, recipient companies would be required to commit to publish annual climate-related disclosure reports… including how their future operations will support environmental sustainability and national climate goals.”
Asked whether the aid would be given to oil and gas companies, Trudeau said the government expects them to “put forward a frame within which they will demonstrate their commitments to reducing emissions and fighting climate change,” and that many have already made commitments to net-zero emissions by 2050….
We’ll lessen the grip on your neck and loan you some of your own blood if you agree to stop breathing…. Meanwhile:
At least 700,000 children in Italy do not have enough to eat each day due to a food shortage brought on by the novel Coronavirus (Covid-19), the Italian agricultural organisation Coldiretti reported on Sunday.
Many children normally receive a hot meal at school but all educational institutions have been closed since March, due to the virus. “The situation is now critical, especially for children whose parents have seen their incomes decrease,” the head of Coldiretti said.” Owners of small stores, seasonal or part-time workers and artisans now have no income left,” he stressed.
The difficulties are being felt in particular in the south of Italy, where poverty is more widespread.
Coldiretti also blames increased food prices: fruits have become 8.4% more expensive, vegetables have gone up by 5% and meat costs 3.4% more.
However, the health crisis has also led to greater solidarity: 39% of Italians said they had donated money or food.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/110734/coronavirus-italy-some-700-000-children-do-not-have-enough-to-eat/ via https://www.sott.net/article/434259-Some-700000-children-in-Italy-do-not-have-enough-to-eat
The consequences of the $2.2 trillion stimulus package are being ignored, even by the White House budget office that put it together, admitting that the package had “come together so quickly,” that they had no time “to do the customary modeling of its fiscal impact.” What does appear to have consensus in financial circles is that after this is over central banks will effectively own the governments of the world, including the United States.
When it is all said and done, President Trump’s stimulus checks will carry an inflationary cost many multiples more than their original $1,200 value in the pre-coronavirus economic reality, a reality that probably won’t become apparent until after the election in November. By then the checks will have served their purpose as a political move, not an economic one. When understood from the vantage point of what is in store for the American working classes as we emerge from this red light on main street, Trump’s checks will only add fuel to the inflationary fire just ahead, according to Neal Kimberley, a macroeconomics analyst for the South China Morning Post.
There is an inflationary cost to the Fed printing ~$50,000 per citizen in stimulus.
If you have only received $1,200 you should be asking why you are bearing the inflationary cost for another $48,800 you never got.
Instead of a bailout you’re paying a hidden tax. Speak up.
— Quoth the Raven (@QTRResearch) May 10, 2020
An economic realignment is unfolding in the wake of the shutdowns prescribed by pandemic response protocols. The coordinated effort to restrict individual participation in the economy spans the globe but is an inherently local matter. While corporations around the world “ride it out” by hoarding their government bailout money in the bond market, regular working people are bearing the brunt of the risk and facing a brave new world on the other side of the COVID Spring, where the distance between them and the richest 0.01 percent will have grown light years further than the recommended six feet.
Shocks to demand elicit certain reactions from the market, whereas shocks to the supply-side call on others. It is exceedingly rare for an economy to suffer shocks on both ends simultaneously, as is occurring at this very moment when both consumers and suppliers are in stasis.
While governments slash interest rates to keep their borrowing costs low, the unprecedented flood of new money is accumulating in the hands of the wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations, who have parked all of it in bond instruments like a horse at the gate of the Kentucky Derby. As soon as the trumpet is blown and the economy restarts itself, those same trillions of dollars will come rushing out and cause massive inflation, which will only be exacerbated by low-interest rates. In other words, we’re sitting on a time bomb, and it is counting down the last seconds….