Iran vows not to renegotiate as Trump's key decision on nuclear deal's future looms

ust days before President Trump is expected to make a key decision on the future of the Iran nuclear deal he has repeatedly threatened to scrap, Iran's foreign minister has publicly vowed that the country will not take any part in renegotiating the terms of the 2015 agreement.

“Iran will not renegotiate what was agreed years ago and has been implemented,” Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in a five-minute English-language video posted on YouTube.

Zarif's speech, delivered directly to the camera as he sat at his desk, is significant because the White House has shown some willingness to preserve the structure of the Iran deal if some of its key terms are modified.

But Zarif rebuked that notion as well as "the response from some Europeans," which he described as "offer[ing] the United States more concessions from our pocket."

TRUMP RESPONDS TO ISRAEL'S BOMBSHELL REVELATIONS ON IRAN

Also on Thursday, a top adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Europe and the U.S. against seeking changes to the deal.

“Even if U.S. allies, especially the Europeans, try to revise the deal…, one of our options will be withdrawing from it,” Ali Akbar Velayati told state television, according to Reuters.

The comments rachet up a week already marked by sky-high tensions surrounding the nuclear arrangement.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed new "dramatic" intelligence which he claimed shows Iran is "brazenly lying" about its nuclear weapons program and shows the country is not complying with the nuclear deal.

Speaking to the Manhattan Institute Wednesday, where she was honored with the Alexander Hamilton Award, United States ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley seemed to suggest that abandoning or significantly altering the Iran deal were the only two options.

>>1309554

Zarif…small world? Not. JK and Zarif sittin in a tree.

Steve Hilton: Mueller probe is a political counter-revolution to overthrow Trump – It must be defeated

Nearly two years ago, the British people voted for Brexit. They rejected the arguments of the political, business, academic and media establishment, which were united in their support for the European Union and its elitist agenda that favors the rich. Instead, voters chose populism, voting for Britain to become a self-governing, independent nation outside the EU.

You can say they were wrong; you can lament their decision. But you can’t deny the facts of what happened.

But guess what? Denying the facts is exactly what the elitists are trying to do.

Right now, the political debate in the United Kingdom is about whether, after Brexit, the UK should … kinda, sorta, stay in the EU really. Or whether in fact there needs to be a second referendum. Because, you know, the people got it wrong the first time.

Well, I suppose the Brits should be thankful for small mercies. At least in the UK they’re talking about a second vote.

Nothing so democratic is happening in the equivalent situation here in America, as the establishment seeks to overturn the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. But how can that happen? In the U.S., the chosen path to remove President Trump from office has become the Russia probe led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and its tabloid offshoot, the Stormy Daniels imbroglio.

The elitists in Washington (including – frighteningly – current and former leadership in our law enforcement and security bureaucracy) are monumentally aggrieved that the people had the temerity to elect a populist outsider to the White House. And they’re not prepared to wait for the 2020 election to try to replace populist Donald Trump.

That’s why this week I described the Mueller probe as a political counter-revolution.

Think back to the investigation’s origins. It was set up after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and told NBC’s Lester Holt that it was because of the “Russia thing.”

Yes – it was because of the “Russia thing;” not because there’s any basis to the “Russia thing” but precisely because there isn’t – and because Comey refused to say that.

Where did the “Russia thing” itself begin? The Hillary Clinton campaign.

The Clinton campaign paid for the dodgy dossier that tried to smear the Trump campaign for supposedly colluding with Russia to win the election. When that didn’t work – Clinton lost the election anyway – her supporters jumped on the “Russia thing” as the reason for her defeat.

You can imagine the supporters all saying: How could she possibly lose to him? There had to be foul play!

Because, of course, it couldn’t possibly be the case that Clinton lost the election on the merits – that working Americans were sick of the policy failures of the establishment and wanted a change from the disastrous elitism of the last few decades.

No – of course that couldn’t be true. It had to be the “Russia thing.” Anything else was too awful to contemplate.

And so in the days and weeks after the election – after the shell-shocked Democrats and their elitist allies in New York and Washington picked themselves off the floor – the drumbeat of the “Russia thing” got louder and louder.

The FBI investigation that was prompted by the Democrats’ dodgy dossier became public. The establishment, as intended, jumped on that too, embracing the belief that “the Russians did it!”

The “Russia thing” took over all political debate and became a huge distraction to the new Trump administration. The president wanted it to go away – hence the request to Comey to confirm publicly that President Trump wasn’t under investigation. And then when Comey wouldn’t do that he was fired. Which led to Mueller.

What’s the point of going over all this ancient history? To remind ourselves that the origin of the “Russia thing” – at least the part that relates to President Trump - was 100 percent political.

And that’s how we need to see it today. The Mueller probe is political warfare through legal means – not surprising when you consider that the Democrats are the party of lawyers, funded by lawyers.

READ MORE: http:// www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/05/steve-hilton-mueller-probe-is-political-counter-revolution-to-overthrow-trump-it-must-be-defeated.html

CNN Panel Gets Heated After Jack Kingston Says Stormy Daniels Engaged in ‘Soft Blackmail’

by Josh Feldman | 2:45 pm, May 5th, 2018

submit to reddit

A CNN panel this morning got a bit heated after former Congressman Jack Kingston defended President Trump on the Stormy Daniels payment.

The panel kicked off right after CNN’s Victor Blackwell used gumballs to highlight the number of lies from the President, with Blackwell asking Kingston, “Are you proud of that?”

Kingston conceded that there’s a lot of “misstatements” from the White House, but added it’s “not unique to this presidency.” He brought up Bill Clinton as an example.

https:// www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-panel-gets-heated-after-jack-kingston-says-stormy-daniels-engaged-in-soft-blackmail/

James Comey Just Lost Two of His Closest Allies at the FBI

by Colin Kalmbacher | 11:32 am, May 5th, 2018

Two of James Comey‘s most loyal confidantes and supporters within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are no longer working with the law enforcement agency as of Friday.

Out at the bureau are two high-profile attorneys: James Baker and Lisa Page.

The FBI’s former general counsel, Baker was reassigned in mid-December 2017 after FBI Director Chris Wray brought in his own team of top advisors as part of a staffing shake-up. Baker’s ouster was long-expected and non-controversial–though some reports tied Baker to reporter David Corn, who broke the Steele dossier story. Corn later denied Baker was his source. Baker leaves under the cloud of a Justice Department investigation into his alleged leaking but he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

A longtime friend and confidant of Comey, Baker’s departure is likely to raise at least a few eyebrows. In comments to the New York Times, Baker said he will be joining the Brookings Institution–a centrist think tank largely funded by the Al Thani dictatorship which rules over the tiny Gulf state of Qatar. Baker will be writing for Brookings’ Lawfare blog, a hawkish, doctrinaire and establishment national security blog administered by Comey’s friend Benjamin Wittes.

Page’s ouster is likely to provoke even more speculation.

Over the past few months, Page has found herself an unlikely source of conservative outrage. A series of text messages between Page and FBI Agent Peter Strzok revealed deep antipathy toward Donald Trump as well as some pointed criticism of Hillary Clinton and others during the 2016 general election. The Page-Strzok correspondence was heavily cited by conservatives as proof-positive evidence of FBI bias against Trump. (Strzok, at one point, was the FBI agent in charge of the Russia investigation.)

It’s presently unclear where Page is going to land next. Though, according to Politico, an anonymous source “close to her” says she already has a new job lined up, too.

READ MORE: https:// lawandcrime.com/federal-bureau-of-investigation/james-comey-just-lost-two-of-his-closest-allies-at-the-fbi/

The Houthi rebels in Yemen, officially known as Ansurallah, have vowed to intensify rocket attacks on Saudi Arabia’s critical oil infrastructure, warning that they are now manufacturing their own ballistic missiles to achieve those aims, the Financial Times reports.

The threat comes at a time when Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia have begun to increase. Just this Saturday, Saudi Arabia’s air defense system intercepted four ballistic missiles over the southwestern region of Jizan. The debris of those missiles reportedly killed one person. Just a week prior, two other missiles were launched at the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) facilities on the Red Sea.

At the beginning of April, the London-based IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center noted that the Houthis claimed to have carried out three separate rocket attacks on Aramco facilities in ten days, including an attack on a Saudi oil tanker, which suffered some damage and led to the intervention of a coalition naval vessel, which in turn repelled the attack.

The Houthis also unveiled their new Badr-1 surface-to-surface weapon system (a heavy artillery rocket system) approximately a week prior, which the rebels claimed they had used to attack Aramco facilities.

Mohammed al-Boukhaiti, a member of the Houthi political council, also told the Financial Times that these attacks were “only the beginning of the response” to the death of Houthi leader Saleh al-Samad, who was killed by Saudi air strikes in April.

“Yemenis will not pass on the death of Samad easily and they will do their best to take revenge for him,” Mr. Boukhaiti said.

Boukhaiti also dismissed allegations that Iran has supplied the Houthis with sophisticated missiles, claiming instead that the rebels have been developing and manufacturing their own rockets and drones.

“The Yemenis have added new systems for manufacturing missiles, so more missiles are targeting Saudi Arabia as a part of an escalation,” Mr. Boukhaiti also said.

The claim that Iran is responsible for the Houthis’ supply of arms is one that continues to skim the surface of mainstream discourse without being bolstered by any hard, credible evidence.

Despite this, these recent developments are raising fears that the war in Yemen may begin to spiral out of control even more so than it has already in the last three years. As even the Financial Times admits, so far into the conflict Saudi Arabia has struggled to make any decent advancement against the rebels. It is also worth noting that in recent times, the Houthis’ confidence only appears to be strengthening, and these recent attacks targeting vital Saudi infrastructure may only improve their standing in the conflict.

According to Graham Griffiths, a consultant with Control Risks Group, these Houthi-led attacks have raised concerns for the safety of employees and assets even if the Houthis cannot exact any significant damage to the Saudi-led coalition.

“This perception of the risk is likely to greatly increase if even a single strike hits a sensitive target,” Griffiths said, according to the Financial Times. “The sustained pace of the attacks allows the Houthis to demonstrate that despite three years of war, they can still retaliate against a much more powerful foe.”

Most importantly — and largely missing from any serious analysis of this conflict — is Mr. Boukhaiti’s statement to the Financial Times that the Houthis will continue these attacks on Saudi Arabia until Riyadh “stops its aggression completely.”

As far as international law is concerned, Yemen is entitled to the right to defend itself from foreign aggression, including striking directly at Saudi Arabia, which is by all accounts the principal instigator of this conflict.

One might be inclined to believe a simple solution worth pursuing would be for the Saudi-led coalition to withdraw from its aggressive and criminal war in Yemen and allow Yemenis to conduct their own affairs.

https:// www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-05/yemeni-rebels-begin-attacking-saudi-oil-infrastructure-you-know-what-means

FBI Chaos: Comey Caught In Lie Over Flynn Investigation; Anti-Trump "Lovebird" Lisa Page Quits

Quite a bit of FBI-related news broke late Friday;

A newly unredacted section of a House Intel Committee report reveals that former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told Congressional investigators that the FBI had virtually no case against Mike Flynn

The same report reveals that James Comey contradicted himself during a recent interview with Bret Baier

Comey, McCabe and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord gave the committee "conflicting testimony"

Anti-Trump FBI "Lovebird" Lisa Page (with whom Peter Strzok was having an affaird) has flown the coop, tendering her resignation on Friday

One of Comey's closest confidants, former FBI top lawyer James A. Baker also resigned Friday

A newly unredacted version of the House Intelligence Committee's final report on Russia was released on Friday, containing bombshell revelations stemming from the Congressional testimony of former FBI and DOJ officials Andrew McCabe and James Comey.

For starters, the redacted section of the report covers up the fact that former deputy director Andrew McCabe told Congressional investigators the FBI had virtually no case against former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.

McCabe also says that former FBI Director James Comey spearheaded the "ambush" of Flynn at the White House - in which two FBI agents, one of whom was Peter Strzok dropped in unannounced to interrogate him.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Sean Davis

✔

@seanmdav

Replying to @seanmdav

Compare the fully redacted version that came out last week to the mostly unredacted version that came out today. Do you see what DOJ/FBI tried to cover up? McCabe said they hadn't substantiated anything against Flynn, and the ambush of Flynn at the WH was directed by Comey.

7:50 PM - May 4, 2018

6,729

5,232 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

McCabe told the committee that "The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn't think he was lying[.]" as well as "[N]ot [a] great beginning of a false statement case."

“Deputy Director McCabe confirmed the interviewing agent’s initial impression and stated that the 'conundrum that we faced on their return from the interview is that although [the agents] didn’t detect deception in the statements that he made in the interview … the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador,'” the report states.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Sean Davis

✔

@seanmdav

Replying to @seanmdav

Compare these two pages. The initial redacted version hid clear testimony that the FBI didn't think Flynn lied. McCabe: "The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn't think he was lying[.]" And: "[N]ot [a] great beginning of a false statement case[.]"

7:53 PM - May 4, 2018

3,752

2,668 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Next, we learn that Comey lied (or had a terrible lapse in memory) when he told Fox News host Bret Baier that he didn't tell Congressional investigators what McCabe told them; that the two FBI agents who interviewed former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn didn't think he was lying to them.

“Director Comey testified to the Committee that ‘the agents…discerned no physical indications of deception," reads the new report. "They didn’t see any change in posture, in tone, in inflection, in eye contact. They saw nothing that indicated to them that he knew he was lying to them.”

Here's what Comey told Fox's Baier last week:

Baier: Did you tell lawmakers that FBI agents didn't believe former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was lying intentionally to investigators?

Comey: No. And I saw that in the media. I don't know what - maybe someone misunderstood something I said. I didn't believe that, and didn't say that.

READ MORE: https:// www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-05/fbi-chaos-comey-caught-lie-over-flynn-investigation-anti-trump-lovebird-lisa-page

>>1309833

I don't think she is going to get off that easy. By the way … that new job could be a dish washer for all we know. They aren't through with he yet.

Nancy Pelosi calls for 'prompt' Ethics investigation into Democrat accused of sexual misconduct with a minor

by Diana Stancy Correll

| May 05, 2018 03:25 PM

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Saturday called for the House Ethics Committee to conduct a "prompt" investigation on Rep. Tony Cardenas, D-Calif., amid allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor.

“I have spoken with Congressman Cardenas and he appropriately asked us to withhold judgement until there is a full investigation of the facts,” Pelosi said in a statement.

“As Members of Congress, we each have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the House of Representatives, and any type of alleged misconduct must be investigated by the Ethics Committee,” she added. “Congressman Cárdenas said he will fully cooperate with an Ethics investigation."

A lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County last week, accusing Cardenas of inappropriately touching a 16-year-old girl beneath her clothes during a drive to an emergency room after he gave her an odd-tasting cup of water. The lawsuit claims the abuse occurred in 2007.

The lawsuit claims that he befriended the woman two years prior at a golf tournament in 2005. The Los Angeles Times was the first to report the lawsuit.

Cardenas’ lawyer denied the allegations earlier this week.

READ MORE: https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/nancy-pelosi-calls-for-prompt-ethics-investigation-into-democrat-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-with-a-minor

Top NRA official warns: Democrats are 'on fire right now'

by Caitlin Yilek

| May 05, 2018 02:56 PM

A top official at the National Rifle Association warned Republicans of what’s at stake if Democrats flip the House in the 2018 midterms.

Chris Cox, the chief of the NRA’s legislative-lobbying arm, said Saturday at the group’s annual convention in Dallas that “everything will be on the table” if Republicans lose control of the House.

“If we lose Congress and the White House, we don’t have to guess what they’ll do to our rights — they’re already openly calling for a complete repeal of the Second Amendment,” Cox said, according to the Washington Times.

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/top-nra-official-warns-democrats-are-on-fire-right-now

After 20 Years, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph That Sparked A Wave Of Climate Alarmism Is Still In Dispute

Roughly 20 years ago, climate scientist Michael Mann published his famous “hockey stick” graph that he says “galvanized climate action” by showing unprecedented global warming.

Mann used the 20-year anniversary of the graph to opine on the “industry-funded” attacks “to discredit the iconic symbol of the human impact on our climate,” which Mann claimed had withstood criticism.

“Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies again and again have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium,” Mann wrote in Scientific American on April 20.

However, the two Canadian researchers who found serious flaws in the “hockey stick” study’s data and methodology disputed Mann’s characterization of the graph’s legacy.

“For everyone else the debate was about data and statistical methods,” Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph in Canada.

“For Mann, judging by his rant, it was all a giant political conspiracy against him and his heroic crusade to save the planet. He still won’t acknowledge the errors in his work,” said McKitrick who co-authored a 2003 study with mining executive Steven McIntyre that challenged Mann’s work.

Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed a spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.

The “hockey stick” went viral and become a rallying cry for environmentalists and politicians who opposed fossil fuels and wanted climate policies. Former Vice President Al Gore even featured the “hockey stick” graph in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The graph also came under intense criticism, even sparking an investigation by GOP lawmakers.

Global warming skeptics were heavily critical of the “hockey stick” graph, especially in the wake of McKitrick’s and McIntyre’s 2003 study. Their study found serious flaws in the proxy data Mann relied on to estimate temperatures going back hundreds of years.

The Canadians’ 2003 study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceed warmth of the 20th Century.READ MORE: http:// dailycaller.com/2018/04/30/hockey-stick-graph-global-warming/

SCOOP: Rick Perry Lets Congress Know GAO’s New Definition Of Office ‘Furnishings’ Is Absurd

Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s office notified Congress he spent just under $10,000 to refurbish his and his deputy’s office, according to letters sent to lawmakers Friday evening, which by The Daily Caller News Foundation obtained.

Perry spent $4,652 reupholstering furniture and painting his office, while Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette spent $4,993 doing much of the same to his office. The Energy Department’s (DOE) general counsel sent the letters to Congress out of an abundance of caution.

The Environmental Protection Agency violated federal law by building a $43,000 secure phone booth, or SCIF, and not notifying Congress,The Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled on April 16. Effectively, GAO redefined a SCIF as office furnishings and improvements, expanding its previous interpretation of federal laws.

“In the interest of transparency, this letter serves to inform you of the recent renovations and the Department’s concerns related to the GAO’s opinion,” DOE general counsel wrote to Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and chair of the subcommittee overseeing Energy Department funding.

GAO “expanded the scope of this provision to apply to virtually any expense associated with a Presidential appointee’s office space,” to include even SCIFs — not exactly office furniture, the general counsel wrote. Before April, federal officials didn’t consider spending on, say, security requirements, like SCIFs, to require congressional notification.

READ MORE: http:// dailycaller.com/2018/05/04/scoop-rick-perry-congress-office-furnishings-definition-absurd/

>>1310072

Has to be in the trillions by now via the collateral extensions into business regs and jobs shipped off shore

>>1310094

no thanks Anon

South Korea Sends Police To Stop Defectors From Telling North Koreans The Truth About Kim Jong Un

South Korean police took action Saturday to prevent defectors from launching balloons filled with leaflets critical of the Kim regime into the North, an act Pyongyang has described as an “act of war.”

In the wake of the landmark inter-Korean summit last on April 28, the North and South Korean leadership agreed to stop dropping propaganda leaflets — decidedly much more of a concern for North Korea given the regime’s need to tightly control the flow of information into the country to keep the people in submission. While the liberal South Korean government is determined to secure peace with a murderous regime, defectors and activists assert that they will “continue to work for the North Korean people.”

At the planned launch Saturday, a few hundred police officers were dispatched to Paju near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to thwart the launch as well as prevent confrontation between the activists and opposition forces, which accused the former of trying to start a war with the North. “Stop provoking a war,” they cheered, according to AFP.

The authorities surrounded the vehicle where thousands of flyers and leaflets were kept, preventing the activists from unloading them. The police justified their actions by citing agreements made at the summit, as well as statements made by the South Korean Ministry of Unification.

READ MORE: http:// dailycaller.com/2018/05/05/south-korea-police-stop-defectors-leaflets/

>>1310107

Smart move. Since Potus didn't Vilify anyone. Pretty much called him out for being an ass. Something I'm is done in Kaepernicks case on an hourly basis. He's such a muppet

>>1310122

This is good … pulling up my hassett and sitting down with a fresh cup of coffee to read this one.

>>1310150

who ever did this…this is great

>>1310160

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Pelosi and or Hillary have an account we were looking at in Mexico City

>>1310177

Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Looks like James wants to duke it out and fight.

Wouldn't want to match wits with him. I think we should let him lead the charge. Hey James can you meme? We'll fire em off like bullets at any adversary of your choosing. :)