HOLY MOLY
From Obama's time in office.
Posted on "Accelerator For America" Eric Garcetti's mayoral website.
Infiltration not invasion.
Brown goes to China, calls it the world's 'hope' on climate
A China-Calif. lovefest
Brown began working with China soon after beginning his third gubernatorial term in 2011, as his interest in climate dovetailed with China's and former President Obama's. Brown met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2012, 2013 and 2015, and signed an agreement with China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) to work on energy efficiency, emissions trading and other climate policies. After Chinese politicians got over their wariness of the United States' motivations for trying to get them to curb their emissions, climate proved a rare safe harbor for discussion.
"It was the one area where the two countries actually came to kind of agree with very little dissent," said Orville Schell, a longtime scholar of both China and Brown and director of the Asia Society's Center on U.S.-China Relations. "They were fighting in the South China Sea, Tibet, the East China Sea, human rights, trade was a terrible obstacle course. When it came to climate change, this was the keystone of the U.S.-China collaborative arch. And then Trump pulled it out."
In the vacuum of federal inaction, Brown's role has grown commensurately. "He's actually laid the groundwork in a way that positions him very nicely now," Schell said. "I think he'll see Xi Jinping when he goes. We'll see this thing growing and expanding in exactly the way that many of us had hoped it would. It's not all roses for America, because California is not America. And we still need an American policy. It's a surrogate of a smaller kind. It's something."
Observers are quick to note that Californian institutions carry significant cultural cachet in China. "People in China might like or dislike the United States, but they all love California," said Hal Harvey, CEO of the San Francisco think tank Energy Innovation, which has worked closely with Chinese policymakers. "California has infinite soft power. Chinese officials are keen to learn about everything here from the Silicon Valley to Hollywood to clean energy technology."
Brown, in his 15th nonconsecutive year as governor of California, is similarly popular. "He's legendary," said Junjie Zhang, director of the Environmental Research Center at Duke Kunshan University, a joint venture of Duke University and Wuhan University. "When he talks, people will listen."
California climate experts, in turn, praise Chinese national politicians such as Premier Li Keqiang and Xie Zhenhua, vice minister in charge of energy and climate at the NDRC, who criticized Trump's vow to exit the Paris Agreement just before the election in November.
Xie's remarks and China's actions thus far indicate policymakers are willing to shoulder the economic dislocations that may occur from climate policies, as well as efforts to reduce the country's glut of industrial overcapacity. Officials announced last year that they would cut 1.8 million steel and coal jobs, or about 15 percent of the workforce, a move aimed at stimulating service-sector growth.
"That takes foresight and political courage," Harvey said. "The private sector in the U.S. is doing the same, but our public policy in energy is instead using more of a Soviet-style protectionism to try to keep obsolete businesses alive. The irony is breathtaking."
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060055521
What did he just say???
17
They throwed Comey under the bus from day one:
Director Comey was not tasked, authorized or requested to produce a transcript of the intercepted phone call; and he was not tasked to do anything else with it. From the perspective of Obama, Comey’s task was complete January 5th, anything more is on him.
The lack of investigative authority toward Flynn is a key point to consider as we look at the internal FBI debate. Remember, the day before the Obama/Comey conversation the FBI investigators had already determined there was “no derogatory information” and they were going to close the investigation. Additionally, there was nothing of issue within the Flynn-Kislyak call content itself.
Anything, including legal risk from an abuse of power, after that January 5th meeting was now completely on Director Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s shoulders.
With that in mind, the debate with FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap, and the January 23/24, 2017, meetings where Priestap is taking notes of conversations with Comey and McCabe, take on a new and narrow focus.
As Priestap took notes about his original concerns: “what is our goal?”
The FBI small group (Comey, McCabe, Baker, Page, Priestap, Strzok, Pientka) together with the DOJ small group (Yates, McCord, Guahar, Moffa) had proposed a wild theory about accusing Flynn of Logan Act violations. Somehow, despite their own investigators saying there was nothing derogatory, the group was determined to eliminate Flynn.
The crew was leaking to the media for support; but even with the severe echo chamber Bill Priestap had reservations writing in his notes during their meeting “I believe we should rethink this.”
The FBI team led mostly by Comey, McCabe, Page and Strzok never even told the main justice crew about the decision to interview Flynn until after it was over, according to Deputy AG Sally Yates.
The FBI wasn’t tasked by anyone else to interview Flynn four days after the inauguration. The content of the Flynn-Kislyak call was fine according to the DC FBI investigators; and the controversy was generated by their own ‘small group’ media leaks and narrative engineering. So ultimately what was the authority to interview Flynn?
According to the outside review by Missouri U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen there wasn’t any legal reason or justified authority to conduct the interview. Hence, Jensen recommended to AG Bill Barr that the DOJ just drop the case; and they did.
The only FBI “pre-authorized” evidence was the gathering of the tech summary or “cuts” from the intercept. There was no task or authorization to generate a transcript or do anything further. James Comey would know that, and he would definitely know from the earlier conversation with President Obama that he was all alone.
With that in mind, do you think Comey would assemble an actual transcript for use in the Flynn interview that Main Justice was never informed was going to happen? Or, would it be safer to stick with the “CR Cuts” and summaries that FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Agent Pientka saw, reviewed and knew about?
In the aftermath of the interview; and amid six months where nothing was done as a result of the interview; and amid all of the subsequent congressional requests for the transcript with no results; and amid all of the special counsel indictment filings against Flynn; and amid all of the legal proceedings against Flynn where the transcripts were requested (defense) and later ordered (judge) over two years; and not produced by prosecutor (Van Grack et al) there is zero evidence the Flynn-Kislyak transcript(s) even exist.
The reality is: there is 100 percent evidence the Flynn transcripts were never used in any proceedings, including legal proceedings; and zero percent evidence they even exist.
When we consider there is nothing derogatory within the Flynn-Kislyak conversation; and the only Flynn issue is how the FBI framed the content of answers to questions about a transcript the FBI has never admitted to exist, or presented to prove their case…Well, is it possible all of the efforts against Flynn were constructed from the use of “tech cuts” or “CR cuts” or summaries of the intercept?
That possibility is only real because the transcripts have never been identified.
The FBI, the DOJ, the special counsel, and the specific prosecutors have never stated they ever held an official transcript beyond the evidence of the call summaries identified above.
Could it be the DOJ bluffed Flynn into a guilty plea with: (1) threats against Mike Flynn Jr, (2) a fabricated 302 written/edited/shaped AFTER the interview, and (3) a non-existent transcript?