iftttwall

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A Cartoon Network show is teaching kids about “intersex, non-binary” gender identities.

A clip from the Steven Universe show made in partnership with the Dove Self-Esteem Project was uploaded to Twitter in which one of the characters says, “Let’s talk about social media, this is my page.”

The profile page belonging to the character reads “Intersex, non-binary, they-them.”

LGBT propaganda targeting children on Cartoon Network pic.twitter.com/nNWexq6POk

— Strucker (@BaronStrucker) May 18, 2020

As the character is scrolling through the social media timeline, the words “Intersex rights are human rights!” and “Intersex Awareness Day October 28th” are displayed.

Steven Universe, which was also made into a movie last year, was created by animator Rebecca Sugar, a self-described “bisexual non-binary woman,” an identity which, according to her Wikipedia page, “has encouraged her to stress the importance of LGBT representation in art, especially in children’s entertainment.”

As we previously highlighted, bombarding children of increasingly younger ages with information about sexuality and gender fluidity has become a goal of progressivism.

The World Health Organization’s ‘Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policymakers, educational and health authorities and specialists’, advises children be taught about sexually pleasuring themselves and transgenderism before they’ve even fully learned to talk.

Drag Queen Story Time, during which drag queens read to and sometimes perform sexually suggestive routines to toddlers, has also been celebrated by the media, as have ‘drag kids’ like Desmond is Amazing.

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

After months of the world’s attention focused on the pandemic and resulting national shutdowns and economic pauses, the fact that the US and Iran were only months ago almost at war in Iraq seems a world away. But a proxy war pitting Iranian-backed Shia paramilitary fores in Iraq against US interests and allies has continued unabated, threatening once again to draw in American military intervention.

In the latest instance, multiple rockets were fired on the US embassy in Baghdad Tuesday morning. “A rocket struck Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone, the seat of Iraq’s government, early on Tuesday morning, according to an Iraqi military statement, the first attack on the area since a new prime minister was sworn in earlier this month,” AP reports.

“An Iraqi official said the rocket had struck near the US Embassy, without elaborating,” the report notes. Local media said in total three rockets were launched toward the embassy —though it’s rarely the case they hit their intended target. Sirens could be heard blaring throughout the central secured area.

While it’s not the first such attack on Baghdad’s high secured ‘Green Zone’ of the past months, it comes amid renewed street protests and popular outrage triggered by accusations that MBC media — a major Middle East broadcaster seen as aligned to Western interests (given it first launched from London before moving to Dubai) — insulted the memory of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the Iraqi paramilitary leader killed alongside IRGC Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani by US drone strike on Jan. 3.

In total four members of the US-led coalition have been killed by rockets believed fired by Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah going back to December.

The tit-for-tat, which has seen Washington conduct major airstrikes on Iraqi paramilitary bases believed supported by Tehran, has seen more and more US intervention even as popular protests demanding the end of US presence rages on the streets.

Likely there’s more turmoil to come as Iraq is dealing crises on multiple fronts, including an economy on the precipice given sinking oil prices and the coronavirus lockdown, as well as reports of a resurgent ISIS amid the mayhem. 

AP describes further that “The new administration of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, who came to power earlier this month, is preparing for a strategic dialogue with Washington, expected to take place next month. The talks will touch on security and economic cooperation between both countries.”

Leaked phone calls between Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko explicitly detail the quid-pro-quo arrangement to fire former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin – who Poroshenko admits did nothing wrong – in exchange for $1 billion in US loan guarantees (which Biden openly bragged about in January, 2018).

Shokin was notably investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that hired Biden’s son, Hunter, to sit on its board. Shokin had opened a case against Burisma’s founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, who granted Burisma permits to drill for oil and gas in Ukraine while he was Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. In January, 2019, Shokin stated in a deposition that there were five criminal cases against Zlochevesky, including money laundering, corruption, illegal funds transfers, and profiteering through shell corporations while he was a sitting minister.

The leaked calls begin on December 3, 2015, when former Secretary of State John Kerry starts laying out the case to fire Shokin – who he says “blocked the cleanup of the Prosecutor Generals’ Office,” and sated that Biden “is very concerned about it,” to which Poroshenko replies that the newly reorganized prosecutor general’s office (NABU) won’t be able to pursue corruption charges, and that it may be difficult to fire Shokin without cause.

Later in the leaked audio on February 18, 2016 – less than three months after the Kerry conversation – Poroshenko delivers some “positive news.”

“Yesterday I met with General Prosecutor Shokin,” says Poroshenko. And despite of the fact that we didn’t have any corruption charges, we don’t have any information about him doing something wrong, I specially asked him – no, it was day before yesterday – I specially asked him to resign. In, uh, as his, uh, position as a state person. And despite of the fact that he has a support in the power. And as a finish of my meeting with him, he promised to give me the statement on resignation. And one hour ago he bring me the written statement of his resignation. And this is my second step for keeping my promises.“

To which Biden replied: “I agree.”

Four weeks later on March 22, 2016, Biden says “Tell me that there is a new government and a new Prosecutor General. I am prepared to do a public signing of the commitment for the billion dollars.“

Poroshenko tells Biden that one of the leading candidates is the man who replaced Shokin, Yuriy Lutsenko who later said in a deposition that Hunter Biden and his business partners were receiving millions of dollars in compensation from Burisma.

Then, on May 13, 2016, Biden congratulates Poroshenko on “getting the new Prosecutor General,” saying that it will be “critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage Shokin did.”

“And I’m a man of my word,” Biden adds. “And now that the new Prosecutor General is in place, we’re ready to move forward to signing that one billion dollar loan guarantee.”

Poroshenko thanks Biden for the support, and says that it was a “very tough challenge and a very difficult job.”

Shokin, meanwhile, filed a criminal complaint against Biden in Kiev this February, in which he writes:

During the period 2014-2016, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine was conducting a preliminary investigation into a series of serious crimes committed by the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Mykola Zlotchevsky and by the managers of the company “Burisma Holding Limited “(Cyprus), the board of directors of which included, among others, Hunter Biden, son of Joseph Biden, then vice-president of the United States of America.

The investigation into the above-mentioned crimes was carried out in strict accordance with Criminal Law and was under my personal control as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

Owing to my firm position on the above-mentioned cases regarding their prompt and objective investigation, which should have resulted in the arrest and the indictment of the guilty parties, Joseph Biden developed a firmly hostile attitude towards me which led him to express in private conversations with senior Ukrainian officials, as well as in his public speeches, a categorical request for my immediate dismissal from the post of Attorney General of Ukraine in exchange for the sum of US $ 1 billion in as a financial guarantee from the United States for the benefit of Ukraine.

* * *

And now we have the audio that shows how the deed was orchestrated.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

On Monday, the markets surged on hopes for a “virus vaccine” and encouraging words for the Federal Reserve that liquidity isn’t going away. Such puts us in the awkward position of having to chase market momentum, knowing fundamentals will eventually matter.

As portfolio managers, we are in the unfortunate position of having to deliver performance for our clients. Such means that while “fundamentals” paint a very an inferior risk/reward environment for investors, momentum continues to trump reason.

As I noted in “The Great Divide:”

“The juxtaposition between economic data and the ‘bull market’ in stocks is quite astonishing.”

“In other words, to no one’s real surprise, the driver of the market is simply ‘The Fed.’ As the Fed engages in ‘QE,’ it increases the “excess reserves” of banks. Since banks are NOT lending to consumers or businesses, that excess liquidity flows into the stock market.”

Jerome Powell’s promise of “unlimited liquidity” on Sunday’s 60-minutes interview was all the markets needed on Monday to take out the trading range.

Fundamentals Will Matter

I certainly understand it seems like “fundamentals don’t matter.” However, eventually, they will.

For now, the excuse is that markets are looking “past” 2020 and into 2021. While such may indeed be the case, there are two problems with that assessment.

1. The current advance is pricing in the best possible outcomes in the future, i.e., a “v-shaped” economic recovery, a successful vaccine, and no secondary viral outbreak. A failure on any, or all, of those outcomes, will leave a void beneath stocks.

2. With earnings estimates already dropping for 2020 and 2021, investors who are looking past 2020 are banking on a “hockey stick” recovery in earnings. However, there is more than a substantial risk earnings fall a lot more before they start to recover.

We addressed the second point in “Stuck In The Middle:”

“The other problem is investors remain overly optimistic about the recovery prospects for earnings going into 2021. As shown, in April 2019, estimates for the S&P 500 was $174/share (reported earnings) at the end of 2020. Today, estimates for Q4-2021 now reside at $147/share. Such is a 15% contraction in estimates when we are discussing a 30-40% decline in GDP.”

“With expectations for the S&P 500 to return to all-time highs in 2021, such would mean that valuations currently paid by investors remain at historically high levels.”

But it isn’t just me, Goldman Sachs is showing the same thing. (Chart courtesy of ZeroHedge)

“Goldman is lowering its EPS growth estimates for 3Q to -30% (from -21%) and no longer sees a full recovery in the fourth quarter, instead of expecting Q4 EPS to be down -17%Y/Y (from +27%) “to reflect a more gradual recovery with quarterly EPS remaining below 2019 levels for the full year.”

All That Matters Is Momentum

Despite the fundamental problems, all that matters currently is the Fed. With momentum pushing stocks higher, as noted above, we have to allow for participation in portfolios while managing inherent risk.

The breakout of the month-long consolidation range to the upside, and above the 61.8% retracement level is indeed bullish.

The “gap up” opening on Monday also flipped the short-term “sell signals” back to “buy,” which suggests we could potentially see some follow-through over the next couple of days.

The “bad news,” if you want to call it that, is the market is now wrestling with both the 200-dma, and the previously broken uptrend line. This level of resistance will be important for the “bulls” to conquer if the markets are going to push higher in the near term.

If the “momentum” trade can indeed break above the 200-dma there is little to stop the market from rallying back to 3100. However, the more extreme overbought conditions will also potentially limit the upside in the short-term.

Re-Evaluating Risk & Reward

The last time the market was at 2900, we laid out the risk/reward suggesting there was downside risk to the 50-dma. The sell-off last week approached that level of support. With the rally and breakout, yesterday, we can re-evaluate those risk/reward brackets.

• -5.5% to last week’s lows vs. 1.4% to the 200-dma. Risk/reward negative.

• -7.6% to the 50% retracement/50-dma vs. 5.6% to the March peak. Risk/reward negative.

• -16.9% to the April 1st lows vs. 9.1% to January’s bottom. Risk/reward negative.

• -24.1% to the March 23rd low vs. 14.5% to all-time highs: Risk/reward negative.

While it may not seem like it at the moment, the risk of a downside retracement, as we head into summer months, outweighs the current upside. Importantly, this does NOT mean the markets can’t rally to all-time highs. It is possible. It is also just as likely that things do go as smoothly as planned, and we wind up retesting March lows.

Such is why we have to weigh the risk and reward of chasing markets.

Positioning Changes

With seasonal sell signals in place, we are very focused on our positioning. Over the last couple of weeks, we have continued to increase our equity exposure. However, as noted previously, we continue to do so in areas that remain defensive, currently out of favor, or opportunistic.

We also balanced our increases in “risk” exposure with matched weights in shorter-duration Treasury bonds, gold, or dollar hedges to reduce our risk.

Yes, we are clearly chasing momentum at the moment. However, we do so with a clear understanding of our risk, reward, and overall net positioning. We continue also to hold a larger than normal level of cash to mitigate volatility risk.

As portfolio managers, we have an obligation to our clients to “make money” when we can. We have a “fiduciary duty” to protect them from significant declines that would destroy their financial plans.

The Pin That Pricks The Bubble

The problem for the market going forward, as noted, is that markets have priced in a speedy recovery back to pre-recession norms, no secondary outbreak of the virus, and a vaccine. If such does turn out to be the case, the Federal Reserve will have a very big problem. 

The “unlimited QE” bazooka is dependent on the Fed needing to monetize the deficit and support economic growth. However, if the goals of full employment and economic growth are quickly reached, the Fed will face a potential “inflation surge.”

Such will put the Fed into a very tight box. The surge in inflation will limit their ability to continue “unlimited QE” without further exacerbating the inflation problem. However, if they don’t “monetize” the deficit through their “QE” program, interest rates  will surge, leading to an economic recession.

It’s a no-win situation for the Fed.

It’s worse for consumers as the Fed’s actions have historically operated as a “wealth transfer” system from the middle-class to the rich.

The only outcome that allows the Fed to monetize the deficit without an inflationary surge is for fundamentals to matter ultimately. A reversion in asset prices will provide the cover needed to continue monetary interventions, but it also means “bullish case” didn’t work out as expected.

Of course, this has always been the case historically. Just as the “Coyote” always wound up going over the cliff when chasing the “Roadrunner,” excessive bullish optimism is always met with disappointment.

One day after we showed that according to the latest Deutsche Bank monthly survey of Wall Street professionals the majority, or 59% of respondents, see the S&P either “lower” or “much lower” in three months than where it is now…

… with 53% confident that there will be a second wave of the virus in the fall/winter…

… this morning BofA also published its latest Fund Manager Survey, which polled 223 participants with $651BN in AUM, and which confirmed the conclusions from the DB poll, namely that the vast majority of financial professionals remain extremely bearish – and which likely means that stocks will keep rising as Powell will do everything in the Fed’s power to avoid another crash.

Indeed, as BofA’s Michael Hartnett summarizes the zeitgeist, just 10% expect a V-shaped recovery, 25% a new bull market; in contrast 75% expect a U or W-shaped recovery, 68% a bear market rally.

Yet despite the seeping pessimism, investors invested in risk assets, with cash levels dropping to 5.7%, down from 5.9%, though well above 10-year average of 4.7% (as a reminder, the BofA Bull & Bear Indictor remains pinned at 0, i.e. investors still extreme bearish, although with the S&P at 3,000 it appears that survey respondents have a habit of openly making up stuff in their responses, a lament we have had about the BofA FMS for years).

Looking at the global economy, poll respondents’ global growth expectations jumped by 40ppt to net 38% (65% stronger, 28% weaker) of FMS investors expecting global growth to strengthen over the next 12 months, but investors do not expect global manufacturing PMI to rise back above 50 before November (latest = 40).

Precipitating the very slow, U-shaped recovery, two-thirds of the survey respondents said that the biggest structural shift will be supply-chain reshoring, followed by protectionism at 44%, and higher taxation at 42%.

As usual, most respondents found that most companies are obese debt monsters, with 73% saying that companies should use cash flow to reduce debt, 15% said increase capex, only 7% said buyback stocks, increase dividends. None of this will ever happen, and instead companies will lever up even more as a result of the Fed’s actions promoting an even greater debt bubble.

Looking at markets, the vast majority of respondents, believe value will underperform growth, with Hartnett noting that last time this many FMS investors, a net 23% of FMS investors, expected value to underperform growth was Dec’07. Which means that value will almost certainly outperform growth, which however would mean a tech/FAAMG crash is imminent.

While most respondents are bearish, they are far more bearish on Europe, and as a result the spread between those long the US (24% overweight) vs short Europe (17% underweight) is now the highest since 2012.

That said, as noted above the vast majority is tactically bearish, with bond allocations rising to the highest since Jul’09, jumping 15% MoM to net 13% underweight (which would mean that survey respondents have either been losing money for the past decade as bond yields plunged, or they are simply so dumb they have no idea what is going on in the bond market)…

…. investors short EM for 1st time since Sept’18…

… along with a record long in healthcare.

Yet despite this self-reported bearishness, when asked what Wall Street views is that most crowded trade, their answer – long US tech & growth stocks (60%). In other words, everyone is confident that everyone else is long the most overvalued sector in asset bubble history, even as most investors expects stocks to slide. That’s one paradox; an even bigger one is that during the biggest health crisis in modern history and the biggest economic depression in decades, everyone is rushing into tech stocks.

As a result of this widespread pessimism, the biggest pain trade for Wall Street in for both stocks and credit remains up, consistent Hartnett’s near-term reco of SPX>3020, RTY>1500, HY spreads<650bps.

Finally, looking at what keeps Wall Street up at night, there were no surprise here as the biggest risk from April carried over, and 52% of respondents see a “second wave” as the biggest risk…

… followed by permanently high unemployment, and a systemic credit event storming in the biggest fears.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

On Monday, the House Democrats filed a brief that with the Supreme Court that the House was actively pursuing new articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump including “the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the special counsel.”

The argument is meant to justify the continued demand for redacted grand-jury material from the now closed Special Counsel investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

I have long supported the congressional demands for documents withheld by the Trump Administration as well as witnesses, including in my testimony during the House impeachment.  The ability to acquire grand jury material turns on whether an impeachment is a “judicial proceeding” under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e).  The district court and the court of appeals ruled that it does and that the House is entitled to the material. However, the House is arguing that this request is not moot after the acquittal of President Trump at the Senate impeachment trial.

Thus, the House is arguing that

“The [House Judiciary] Committee’s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial. … The withheld material remains central to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the President’s conduct. If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles adopted by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”

The House specified its continuing impeachment inquiry:

“The Committee’s investigation continues today and has further developed in light of recent events. For example, the Committee is investigating the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the RogerStone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the SpecialCounsel.

See Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al. to Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (May 8, 2020),https://perma.cc/799D-2PNY. The Committee has announced its intention to hold a hearing with the Attorney General—who has failed to appear before the Committee at any point on any topic during his tenure—on these issues as soon as possible.”

The inclusion of the Stone and Flynn cases blurs the line between what is an oversight and an impeachment interest.  It is hard to see a credible impeachment claim arising out of either case.  The Stone case involves a change in a sentencing recommendation while Flynn involves a motion to dismiss the case entirely.

However, both cases garnered criticism long before the actions of the Justice Department and fall squarely within the area of prosecutorial discretion.  While the House has strong claims to evidence sought by committees, its claim of a perpetual impeachment are forced and artificial. 

It also raises the uncomfortable prospect for the Court of a claim of impeachment authority to trump executive privileges and challenges.  The position of the House seems to be that we are able to claim the ultimate level of deference in such demands simply because we say that we have seeking a possible impeachment. 

This concern is magnified by the position of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in long refusing an impeachment vote, that she could unilaterally trigger such powers in a simple press conference.

I have previously criticized the House for its slipshod and abbreviated impeachmentprocess.  That record could become more relevant in this litigation where justices may generally support the right of the House to such evidence but remain skeptical of the fluid use of impeachment to justify such demands.

Here is the House filing to the Supreme Court…

In the wake of bombshell evidence that shows the Obama DOJ inappropriately targeted the 2016 Trump campaign, Senate Republicans have compiled a list of 53 individuals they want to interview as part of their own comprehensive probe into the matter, separate of the Trump DOJ’s separate criminal investigation headed up by US Attorney John Durham.

That said, as Fox News reports, the effort is being led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), so we expect weekly cable news appearances in which Graham wags his finger and issues the sternest of empty threats to investigate the swamp.

Graham has previously come under fire for failing to follow through on promises to seek testimony from current and former DOJ and FBI officials – telling Fox News‘ Maria Bartiromo that he doesn’t want to interfere with Durham’s probe.

But – in the unlikely event Graham isn’t going to simply run cover for the swamp in a sham investigation designed to placate those who seek justice, here are the names of those on the subpoena list, via Fox News:

The majors:

[former FBI Director] James Comey, [former FBI Deputy Director] Andrew McCabe, [former Director of National Intelligence] James Clapper, [former CIA Director] John Brennan, [former Deputy Attorney General] Sally Yates.

We note that the names of both President Obama and his VP Joe Biden are conspicuously absent, despite the fact that both of them were in a January 5, 2017 meeting in which Obama gave Comey the nod to conceal information from the incoming Trump administration.

If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2020

Graham, in response, said that asking for testimony from a former president would set a ‘dangerous precedent.‘

Everyone else:

“Trisha Anderson, Brian Auten, James Baker, William Barr, Dana Boente, Jennifer Boone, Kevin Clinesmith [the FBI lawyer who allegedly falsified a CIA email to secure the Carter Page FISA warrant], Patrick Conlon, Michael Dempsey, Stuart Evans, Tashina Gauhar [a top DOJ deputy when classified details of Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador were illegally leaked to The Washington Post], Carl Ghattas, Curtis Heide, Kathleen Kavalec, David Laufman [who arranged a key meeting with a Steele dossier source], Stephen Laycock, Jacob Lew, Loretta Lynch, Mary McCord, Denis McDonough, Arthur McGlynn, Jonathan Moffa, Sally Moyer, Mike Neufield, Sean Newell, Victoria Nuland, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Stephanie L. O’Sullivan, Lisa Page, Joseph Pientka [who interviewed Flynn at the White House while also playing a key role in the Carter Page probe, and whom the FBI has hidden from scrutiny], John Podesta, Samantha Power, E.W. “Bill” Priestap [who authored the memo debating whether the bureau simply wanted Flynn “fired”], Sarah Raskin, Steve Ricchetti, Susan Rice, Rod Rosenstein, Gabriel Sanz-Rexach, Nathan Sheets, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Glenn Simpson, Steve Somma [an FBI case agent who apparently was involved in several key FISA omissions], Peter Strzok, Michael Sussman, Adam Szubin, Jonathan Winer, and Christopher Wray.”

Priestap authored a handwritten memo that openly questioned if the FBI’s “goal” in interviewing Flynn was “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired” — a document that the feds turned over earlier this month, even though the DOJ had been under an obligation to turn over potentially exculpatory materials to Flynn for more than two years.

Documents also revealed  that Strzok, the anti-Trump FBI agent who also participated in the Flynn interview, pushed to keep the Flynn probe alive even though the FBI’s Washington field office wanted to close the case.

The DOJ revealed late Monday that it has produced the bureau’s May 5 interview of Preistap, although the interview notes have remained under seal for now. –Fox News

Fox points out that Pientka – who interviewed Flynn and was involved in the Carter Page investigation, was removed from the FBI’s website after the news outlet contacted the agency about his extensive role in the Crossfire Hurricane probe.

FBI Agent Joe Pientka – who lied the FISA Court and later interviewed Flynn – was promoted and moved to the SF area AFTER the FBI learned of serious problems in his FISA application.

The SF FBI Field Office has scrubbed him from their site.

See screengrabs below. pic.twitter.com/sgPHbcF0tM

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) January 12, 2020

Graham’s subpoena list is set for debate starting May 21, while a vote is expected June 24. In order to move forward, Judiciary Committee subpoenas would require the consent of a ranking Democrat, or a full vote of the committee.

Meanwhile, Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) requested on Monday that the DOJ turn over an unredacted copy of an email that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice sent to herself on inauguration day documenting that secretive January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting in which Obama “shocked a top DOJ official with his knowledge of the FBI’s Flynn probe.”

“I understand your office is currently reviewing a January 20, 2017, email from former National Security Adviser Susan Rice,” Johnson wrote to Attorney General Bill Barr. “In that email, Ambassador Rice summarized an Oval Office meeting with President Obama and other administration officials that occurred on January 5, 2017.” (via Fox News)

“A majority of Ambassador Rice’s email was declassified but a portion of the email remains classified. The significance of that meeting is becoming increasingly apparent as more and more information is declassified. For these reasons, it is essential that Congress and the American people understand what occurred during that January 5, 2017, meeting and how it was later characterized by administration officials. The declassification of Ambassador Rice’s email, in whole, will assist these efforts.”

Obama was aware of the details of Flynn’s intercepted December 2016 phone calls with Russia’s then-Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising Sally Yates in the Oval Office meeting, according to documents released this month as exhibits to the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case. -Fox News

According to documents released earlier this month, Obama’s knowledge of the Flynn surveillance apparently surprised Sally Yates during the January 5 meeting.

Obama personally had warned the Trump administration against hiring Flynn, and made clear he was “not a fan,” according to multiple officials. Obama had fired Flynn as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014; Obama cited insubordination, while Flynn asserted he was pushed out for his aggressive stance on combating Islamic extremism.

On January 5, 2017, Yates attended an Oval Office meeting with Comey, then-Vice President Joe Biden, Brennan and Clapper, according to the newly declassified documents, including an FD-302 FBI witness report. They were discussing Russian election interference, along with Rice and other members of the national security council.

After the briefing, Obama asked Yates and Comey to “stay behind,” and said he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Russia’s ambassador about sanctions. Obama “specified that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information.” -Fox News

Obama and Biden, meanwhile, get a pass.

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

On March 24, President Donald Trump said he wanted the country and the economy “opened up and just raring to go by Easter.”

Easter came and went. And Trump was mocked for being aspirational and unrealistic. Yet, with Ascension Thursday at hand, 40 days after Easter, the president seems to have been ahead of his time.

The country, as a whole, is, and has been, opening up. Sunday’s New York Times reports that, for weeks now, more than two-thirds of the states have been relaxing restrictions as Trump had urged.

The reasons: weariness with the lockdown and sheltering in place, a growing belief that the worst of the pandemic is behind us and undeniably positive news from several fronts in the coronavirus war.

“New Cases in U.S. Slow,” ran The New York Times top headline Sunday, adding the cautionary warning, “Posing Risks of Complacency.”

The facts suggest a positive trend. The number of newly confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S. has been dropping for a month. The number of deaths has fallen from 2,200 a day in April to closer to 1,400 a day in mid-May. Several days last week recorded fewer than 1,000 deaths, an awful toll but a clear improvement over April.

As of Friday, the rate of new cases of the coronavirus was declining in 19 states and rising in only three. New Orleans and Detroit have seen sharp drops. The number of new cases in New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island has dropped. New cases in Cass County, Indiana, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where meatpacking plants had seen outbreaks, have declined.

“On eight of the past nine days,” said the Times, “there have been fewer deaths announced than there were seven days prior, indicating that the virus toll appears to be easing. More than half of the 24 counties that have recorded the most coronavirus deaths, including Oakland County, Mich., and Hartford County, Conn., are seeing sustained declines.”

Still, the thrust of the Times article was about the new crisis we will be courting, should we try to resume normal activities too soon. Do that, says the Times, and we could easily forfeit all the progress we have made.

Message: Social distancing, sheltering in place, wearing masks, working at home — the practices that broke the back of the pandemic — should be sustained for those able to do so.

Clearly, the opening in many states has been driven by popular protest and public demand. Crowds have ignored social distancing to demonstrate for an end to the shutdown. Protesters have refused to wear masks and engaged in the time-honored practice since the ’60s of civil defiance and disobedience.

The protesters seem to be saying: We deplore the losses and know the risks, but we cannot live our lives behind closed doors in our homes until the elites tell us, as though we were children, when we may go out in the yard.

Hence, the next question we are all likely to confront:

If there is a sudden resurgence of the coronavirus, a second wave, and the media elite and blue state governors demand a new shutdown, a new closure of beaches, parks, shops, restaurants and churches, will the people of this republic comply with those demands or defy them?

Will the nation answer back to the elites: We did that. We sheltered in place. We wore the masks. We socially distanced. We stayed in our homes. We stayed home from work. We have done all we were told to do to contain the virus. But, now, with the shutdown having put 36 million Americans on unemployment and sunk our GDP to Depression-era levels, we’re going back to work.

The political divide has already begun to appear.

Among those making the case for ending the shutdown and reopening the country and economy will be Trump, red state governors like Ron DeSantis in Florida and Brian Kemp in Georgia, conservatives in Congress and populists.

The proponents of a second shutdown will be liberal governors and mayors, the mainstream media and the Nancy Pelosi wing of Congress.

It should not go unmentioned that the latter’s political interests are best served the longer the shutdown endures and the worse the economic situation on Nov. 3. If the economy has failed to begin a robust recovery by fall, the greater the odds that Joe Biden wins the White House.

Yet, even if the pandemic returns in the fall, the establishment cannot keep the country closed indefinitely.

Prediction: If the people conclude they have done all they can do to mitigate the suffering from a virus they cannot eradicate, they will resist the imposition of another shutdown, and the establishment will have neither the will nor ability to push them back into their homes.

Ultimately, the people will decide when this shutdown ends, and when a plurality so concludes, the elites will be swept aside.