Work the Phones (w/New Slant): Save Campaign Promises
(Seeking help from Mexico and Australia)
Three current “hot” items issues are here piecemeal in this post: (1) Mueller’s cases building against Trump; (2) Trump’s international phone calls – the wall and limiting legal immigration, and (3) the War in Afghanistan – the U.S. is not winning
Short Video Introduction to Set the Scene as It Were - note that during those phone calls that Flynn (since having been fired) and Bannon were also present — so who leaked the transcript to press? LOL LOL LOL
In short: Those loyalists are by any definition hypocrites not only regarding any of their public statements and such, but more so to themselves.
Mueller’s case against Donald J. Trump is about obstruction of justice and it is building up Steam by his ordering of a Grand Jury.
Right after Mueller was appointed Special Counsel in May, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told several of the highest-ranking managers of the bureau they should consider themselves possible witnesses in any investigation into whether President Donald Trump engaged in obstruction of justice, according to two senior federal law enforcement officials.
McCabe told colleagues that he too is a potential witness in the probe of whether Trump broke the law by trying to thwart the FBI's Russia investigation and the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Two senior federal law enforcement officials also have confirmed the new revelations illustrate why they believe the potential case against Trump is stronger than outsiders have thought, with one of them adding: “What you are going to have is the potential for a powerful obstruction case. You are going to have the former Director testify, then the acting director, the FBI CofS, the general counsel, and then others, one right after another. This has never been solely about “the word of Trump against what Comey has/or had to say. This is more like the FBI vs. Donald J. Trump.”
Trump and his supporters have long argued that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the special counsel to bring an obstruction case against Trump. The case would rely on the word of one man versus another, that of the president of the United States versus the director of the FBI he fired. But this was never the case.
Including Comey, as many as 10, and possibly more, of the nation’s most senior law enforcement officials are likely to be questioned as part of the investigation into whether Trump committed obstruction of justice and that is according to two government investigators with first-hand knowledge of the matter.
Comey’s notes on his conversations could also be used as evidence.
This is an extract of Trump’s later call to the Mexican president re: the Wall and penalty for not paying for it:
Mexican President ENRIQUE PEÑA NIETO to TRUMP: “To tell you the truth, Mr. President, I feel quite surprised about this new proposal that you are making because it is different from the discussion that both of our teams have been holding.”
Note: The proposal that caught Peña Nieto by surprise and was addressing was a tariff on goods imported from Mexico to the United States. Trump agreed that a tariff had not been discussed in talks between White House adviser Jared Kushner and Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray but said Peña Nieto should have expected it, based on Trump's campaign rhetoric.
TRUMP to PENA NIETO: “Enrique, if I can interrupt — this is not a new proposal. This is what I have been saying for a year and a half on the campaign trail. I have been telling this to every group of 50,000 people or 25,000 people — because no one got the people in their rallies as big as I did. But I have been saying I wanted to tax people that treated us unfairly at the border, and Mexico is treating us unfairly.”
(Note: Astonishing how Trump wove that aspect into their conversation … seeking to fluff himself again about winning and how he did).
Other elements in those two international phone calls (Aussies and Mexico) can be read here from the Washington post in the transcripts.
War in Afghanistan – Now Trump’s War: The U.S. has been unsuccessful in curbing Afghanistan's drug trade (re: SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction). Some $8.6 billion has been spent trying to stop their opium production and trading (which BTW is the largest in the world and it growing now faster ever).
SIGAR’s IG said in their report: “No matter which metric you use, the anti-opium effort has been a real failure,” Gen. John F. Sopko, SIGAR’s IG, told NBC News last year. That money is part of an estimated $119.7 billion spent by the U.S. in an attempt to rebuild Afghanistan.
SIGAR, which scrutinizes U.S. spending there, told NBC News last year how much of this money has been wasted on such things as useless aircraft, unnecessary facilities, and buildings that literally melted in the rain.
They also said: “Add that to the fact that the Afghan government is cobbled together from the winners and losers and it is shows large division.” (Re: Senior fellow Shashank Joshi at RUSI (the Royal United Services Institute).
So what now, um, Mr. Trump?
Joshi at RUSI believes that the former would not work adding: “Why would more troops make a difference now when over 100,000 did not during the Obama surge?” — (Note: This may be closer to Trump’s view) since “withdrawal is clearly his instinct, but he clearly wants to wash his hands of the war as most American generals offer that as a way to stop the bleeding, but and that might not be enough for Trump, since he likes winning.”
Stay tuned is my best advice at this point – the onus is now on SC Robert Mueller.
Thanks for stopping by.