Canadian Prime Minister Tells New York Times He’s Prepared Military Combat Operations Against USA, Plans Closer Ties with China, and Wants Alternate Global Reserve Currency to U.S. Dollar

Conservative Treehouse 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney left the United Nations General Assembly and went directly to the New York Times for a pre-scheduled interview with fellow leftist travelers intent on influencing the U.S midterm election.

Carney having previously appointed Clinton/Obama Democratic operative Maia Johnson as his Chief Operating Officer within his office, obviously had one agenda in mind as he strolled into the Times office for his pre-planned operation.

Within the hour-long conversation, the Canadian Prime Minister had several key points of emphasis in his objective. The top-line hook to draw in the audience was his first statement about having prepared for military combat operations against the United States.  [ARTICLE HERE] Key points below:

(1) Carney developed contingency plans to use military combat operations against the United States.  Yes, it is transparently obvious this is a political statement.  His mentioning of this is meant to create the traditional leftist victimhood position used in all psychological operations.  Carney follows this outlandish statement by saying these military plans are no longer needed because he now feels he has “a good relationship” with President Trump.

[…] “Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada said that he had prepared over the past year for the “extreme tail risk” that President Trump might order military action against Canada but disclosed that the two men have spoken “frequently,” even since trade talks collapsed last month, describing a tense, evolving relationship.

Mr. Carney suggested that he had carefully examined the possibility of U.S.-led military action, but declined to discuss in detail what that involved. “I think you have a responsibility in these roles to look at extreme tail risk,” said Mr. Carney, a former central banker for Britain and Canada. … “That’s just risk management. That’s not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to” prepare.”

(2) Carney outlines how he intends to build a closer economic relationship with China as a hedge against Canadian dependency on the United States.  Given the statements made by Carney in Beijing, this does not come as a surprise; however, it is the expressed open intent to further attach Canada to China that should raise eyebrows.

“He talked about a focus on deepening economic — though not defense — relationships with China.”

Carney couched his Chinese intentions by saying he wanted closer relationships on all facets except military cooperation, as if that makes the proclamation less concerning.  Given the pre-existing influence already achieved by China in Europe and the U.K, Carney’s statements are in alignment with his EU-centric vision for the Canadian people.

(3) Against the backdrop of Elon Musk refusing to permit Ukraine to use Starlink satellite capabilities to strike Russia, Carney now says the U.S. satellite communication system is not reliable, and he is seeking to use European and Korean satellites to build out his strategic defense initiatives.

“Starlink, we will diversify away from, no question,” Mr. Carney said, referring to the American-based cluster of communication satellites, run by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, that have revolutionized the industry. He alluded to past disruptions and to Mr. Musk’s reluctance to provide Ukraine with data that would enable it to target parts of Crimea and Russia.

He acknowledged that other satellite network options are still less capable and resilient, but added that “from a defense perspective, and certainly pooled with other partners, Europeans, Koreans potentially, you get to scale and you cut that dependency.”

Obviously, the stenographers from the New York Times did not challenge Carney on how this position would align with NORAD or the enhanced golden dome security defenses recently proposed by President Trump.  It would be uncomfortable for the ideological and intensely political Prime Minister to have to square that logic.

(4) The former Bank of England manager also repeated his intention to replace the U.S. Dollar with an alternative global reserve currency, indicating that China could be the replacement as soon as “proper liberalization of China’s currency and financial system” could be achieved.

Mr. Carney on Wednesday also reiterated his long-held view that a global financial system wholly dependent on the U.S. dollar was unsustainable. A move to a multipolar system in which there are several reserve currencies would “provide more flexibility,” he said. … any pivot would be limited until there was “proper liberalization” of China’s currency and financial system.

This outlook is in alignment with his handlers in Great Britain, specifically the banking interests in the City of London, who now view economic nationalism as a threat to financial globalism.  President Trump’s position of sovereign national interests and respectful bilateral trade between nations runs counter to the multilateral mechanisms of globalist control.

♦ The interview is strategic politics using the claimed status of victimhood as a tool to justify a position against the larger interests of the representative body, the Canadian people.  Unfortunately, approximately 85% of the Canadian electorate are a captured psychology in alignment with Carney’s tactics.

The interview also highlights the urgency that now underpins the need for the United States to take aggressive action and sever all ties with Canada.

There are those who argue that cutting Canada away from the U.S. will only end with closer ties to China, thereby representing a significant threat on our northern border.  Those who hold this outlook need to accept that Canada is going to assemble those ties regardless of U.S. opinion.

It is not a matter of Canada threatening the U.S. by saying they will form a stronger bond with China if you don’t acquiesce to our parasitic economic demands.  Canada will form a stronger bond with China regardless of whether we permit them to remain a vessel for Chinese component goods into our nation.

Canada openly wants to be deeply partnered with China, and sovereign North American trade rules are against that interest.  Canada, under Carney, will undermine the U.S. position against Beijing at every opportunity.

It is for that reason that all ties with Canada must be reconsidered urgently and with extreme prejudice.  When the opposition is claiming false victimhood to set their demands, give the false victim the outcome of real victimhood.

The U.S. needs to act quickly to terminate the USMCA and put Canada on notice that all economic relations are over. There is zero compatibility between a protective USA and an exploitative Canada that will undermine U.S. manufacturing and trade by transshipping Chinese component goods into North America.

What are the rules and restrictions we have against China?

Apply those exact same rules and restrictions to Canada.

Sever all current multilateral trade agreements. Restrict cross-border access and apply the same visa restrictions to Ottawa that exist for Beijing.  Canada is proclaiming themselves as an adversary to America.  Treat them like one.

[New York Times Article HERE]

Suggestion to Prosecute a ‘Russiagate’ Conspiracy

Conservative Treehouse 

After writing the lengthy outline about the problem faced by Joseph diGenova, a Reagan-era former U.S. attorney and longtime Trump ally who served as counselor to Attorney General Todd Blanche and exited over strategic differences {GO DEEP}, several people provided feedback, generally expressing understanding and agreement.

A few asked for suggestions.

Having looked at the challenges from every direction, and having a deep understanding of the complications within any prosecutorial effort on this highly complex ‘conspiracy’ case, I am going to outline my best advice.

This is how you arrange the case.

In any successful endeavor like this, you need the hook.  You need a central point of focus that brings the entire operation into a clearer view.  Stories like this are not told in a linear fashion; you need a central point of focus and then you build out the storyline from there.

So, what it that inflection?  What is that moment that establishes the point from which everything else falls into place?

First, look at the requirements.  The central event needs to encompass the foundational unlawful activity.  The event needs to be clearly unlawful in nature and highlight the mindset that existed within each of the participants.  The evidence must have a clear, distinct and actionable set of facts that can be directly proven beyond doubt.

The event needs to have been previously investigated, so that time is not wasted repeating a lengthy and exhaustive investigation around the fact pattern.  The event needs a specific set of witnesses, who cannot escape being truthful about the preexisting irrefutable facts. And the event needs to highlight a conspiracy by every participant who cannot deflect their participation by claiming they were unaware of the intent of every action within the process.

Those are the predicate requirements that establish the value of the central point of focus.  This is what makes a grand jury or criminal case jury have a consistent reference point.  If this fact pattern is demonstrably true, then that action or outcome is incontrovertibly self-evident.

That moment I am describing is March 17, 2017, when the Top-Secret Compartmented Intelligence (TSCI) product, a Title-1 Surveillance Warrant, a FISA warrant, was unlawfully leaked to the media with a very specific intent.

There is no statute of limitations on this event.  It was unlawful when it took place and it is unlawful today.

The leaking of the March 17, 2017, Carter Page FISA warrant is the moment that establishes evidence of a larger conspiracy to manipulate the legal apparatus of the United States government and weaponize an effort to impede then remove a sitting U.S. President from office.

SUMMARY: FBI Washington Field Office Supervisory Special Agent Brian Dugan picked up the ‘read and return’ FISA warrant from the FISA Court and delivered it to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) on March 17, 2017, where he handed it to SSCI Security Director James Wolfe and awaited it for return.  SSCI Vice-Chairman Mark Warner then reviewed the warrant.  James Wolfe then took 82 individual pictures of each page of the warrant, and sent the images via a Signal encrypted app to Buzzfeed journalist Ali Watkins.

After Ali Watkins wrote an article in early April 2017, using Wolfe and the FISA leak as her anonymous source, she became a target for investigation.  Washington Field Office FBI Agent Brian Dugan investigated James Wolfe. FBI Agent Jeffrey Rambo investigated Ali Watkins.

The leak of the FISA warrant is not in question.  The warrant was leaked by James Wolfe, and Wolfe was indicted for the event.  However, this is where the conspiracy expands.

Following Wolfe’s legal team informing Main Justice DAG Rod Rosenstein, and Washington DC U.S Attorney Jessie Liu, who was prosecuting the case, Wolfe’s defense would bring the senate intelligence committee into any trial, a decision was made to drop the classified leak charge and a deal reached to prosecute Wolfe for a single 18 U.S. Code § 1001 violation of lying to investigators.

The judge in the case was, wait for it, US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who is now a Supreme Court Justice.

Nothing about these events is in doubt.  There was an 8-month FBI investigation which culminated in an indictment assembled in Jan/Feb 2018, processed through a grand jury and sealed until June 2018 when it was unsealed and made public.

In reaction to the Wolfe indictment, within a month in July 2018, the Robert Mueller special counsel then did something that was unprecedented. The Mueller team released the Title-1 TSCI Carter Page FISA application to the public. Never before had anyone ever seen a Title-1 warrant released to the public.

This leak on March 17, 2017, is the thread that binds the entire Russiagate narrative together.  Three days later on March 20, 2017, FBI Director James Comey appeared before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and admitted for the first time publicly that President Trump was under an FBI investigation since July 31 of 2016.

James Comey could not explain why the Gang-of-Eight oversight had never been informed of the FBI investigation in the past 8 months.  Instead, Comey arrogantly -albeit nervously- shrugged and said, “because of the sensitivity of the matter?”

The March 2017 FISA leak connects, through timing, sequence and investigative outcome, most of the “Russiagate” participants because the evidence gathered within the leak investigation encompassed telephone communication and text messages from inside the SSCI as Vice-Chairman Mark Warner was conducting the organized effort.

After Wolfe made his admissions to the FBI on December 17, 2017, and in-between the time the evidence was being organized for grand jury presentation, and before the indictment of Wolfe was unsealed, there is a massive amount background activity that exposed the larger plot.  All of that activity has identified names, people who can be called as witnesses.

One of the ramifications during this period was the risk that then SSCI Chairman Richard Burr represented to the conspiracy crew.  During the FBI investigation of Wolfe, FBI Agent Brian Dugan was told by Rod Rosenstein and FBI leadership to inform SSCI Chair and Vice-Chair Burr and Warner of the investigation.  In essence, Warner who likely directed the leak was given a head’s-up that he was exposed.  FBI leadership did this intentionally.

After the failed CIA organized impeachment effort, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized a cellphone belonging to Burr from his home, and Senator Richard Burr was then forced to step down from his position.  The investigation surrounded “insider trading” but appeared to be a cover-up targeting to silence Burr for prior knowledge.

The evidence against Wolfe represented a threat to multiple interests.  This activity -and more- reveals the scope and severity of risk represented by that singular moment in March 17, 2017, the classified FISA leak.

The tentacles from that leak extend backward in time to the FISA organizers, forward in time to the group who weaponized Lawfare and sideways into both the legislative and executive branch participants.  This is the conspiracy centered on a focused moment.

As a sidebar, keep in mind that before March 17, 2017, when Warner demanded a copy, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and his senior staff had already seen and reviewed the Title-1 surveillance warrant.

The evidence exists, this was a massive leak of classified information, the witnesses are known and the participants are all clear. However, Main Justice and the U.S. Attorney in DC made the decision not to address it – too big to jail?  The ramifications were widespread and far reaching.

WITNESSES FOR GRAND JURY (in sequence):

♦ FBI Supervisory Special Agent Brian Dugan. He can explain all of the events as they unfolded, answer questions about what evidence was gathered, outline events as they unfolded during his investigation, and he can tell the story as to why the prosecutorial decisions were made that ran counter to the overwhelming evidence.  Dugan also filed a sentencing memo with the court (Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson presiding) swearing under oath and penalty of perjury that Wolfe leaked the FISA application.

♦ FBI Agent Jeffrey Rambo.  He can explain his discoveries on how the leak was distributed from Ali Watkins, to which outlets, for what intents and purposes, as well as share his notes from interviews with Ms Watkins about her relationship to James Wolfe. [NOTE: there was NOTHING romantic about it – that was a cover story.]

♦ Former USAO Jessie Liu who was responsible for all the decisions in the non-prosecution of James Wolfe.  Why was Wolfe not prosecuted.  Who, beyond her, made the decision not to prosecute after the indictment was released.  Liu can explain the conversations that were happening in the background and also take the GJ into the Mueller probe who she informed of the issues around Wolfe after things were in evidence.

♦ Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. Almost certainly a conduit between the Mueller probe and Jessie Liu during the issues that surfaced after the Wolfe capture was identified.  Rosenstein was involved in Main Justice’s response to the risk that Wolfe represented to the overall Intelligence Community aspect within government.  Rosenstein had conversations with USAO Jessie Liu about the matter and about the ramifications not only to government but to the Mueller investigation.

♦ SSCI Security Director James Wolfe. With all that context and evidence now captured, give James Wolfe immunity on this specific matter.  Remember, while Wolfe lies at the heart of this event, Wolfe was never prosecuted for the actual leak itself. It is not a double-jeopardy issue.  Wolfe’s testimony, under immunity, gets to Mark Warner and beyond.

♦ Ali Watkins.  Again, in order to compel information and avoid journalistic avoidance, offer immunity for truthful testimony about how the leak was used and distributed.  If the New York Times lines up a legion of lawyers to protect her from testimony (likely), then just skip the media aspect, or slide it off to others and keep moving forward.

♦ Daniel Jones.  The former chief of staff to Dianne Feinstein and bagman who carried money to Fusion GPS and beyond, appears in the conduit conversations with Mark Warner at the time of the leak.  Dan Jones was making visits to Mark Warner’s office carrying messages from Chris Steele’s lawyer Adam Waldman.

♦ Adam Waldman.  The lawyer and representative of Oleg Deripaska and Chris Steele who was in communication with Mark Warner and organizing “no paper trail” discussions about the overall Russiagate strategy.  Waldman text messages with Mark Warner are part of the evidence file assembled by FBI Agent Dugan.

♦ Chris Steele.  Previously he refused to cooperate with Special Counsel John Durham or lead investigator Bill Aldenberg. Steele would be a hostile witness although he may be out of reach hiding behind U.K intelligence efforts. If expressed testimony is limited to cooperation surrounding contact with Waldman and Warner, specifically as it relates to the FISA leak, perhaps Steele would reevaluate.

♦ Secretary of State Marco Rubio.  As a former SSCI member (Rubio replaced Burr) Senator Rubio previously defended the Warner’s contact with Waldman saying he was aware Warner was trying to organize committee testimony with Chris Steele. However, Rubio’s defensive remarks were made four months before awareness of James Wolfe’s leak was public. In hindsight what did Rubio know in February 2018 as it relates to the committee activity in 2017.

♦ SSCI Vice Chairman Mark Warner. Now you get to the heart of the conspiracy.  Warner instructed Wolfe to leak for what purpose?  Was Warner coordinating with James Comey?   If all of the previous testimony and evidence aligns to tell the factual story of events as they appear, Senator Mark Warner is in a position of extreme legal risk.  However, that said, Warner is also the Vice Chair of the most powerful Senate committee.  A grand jury subpoena to Warner will hit the headlines within seconds, much faster than John Brennan, as the entire Russiagate apparatus recognizes the potential of his testimony.  Remember, Warner took the position as Vice-Chair of the SSCI specifically to lead, organize and conduct the operations against incoming President Donald Trump.

♦ Andrew Weissmann.  Obviously, Robert Muller is impossible to question, he has dementia. However, someone in a position of knowledge within the Special Counsel operation should be questioned about the information they received from FBI Agent Dugan and USAO Liu as an outcome of their mechanism of control over anything to do with Trump-Russia.  Because the Wolfe leak touched on Trump-Russia via the FISA warrant, the Mueller special counsel team was notified.  Rosenstein likely has information about this within his testimony, hence the sequencing.

From that series of testimonials, it is then possible to question the person responsible for the technical and legal FISA assembly, former legal counsel to the AADAG in charge of the DOJ National Security Division, Michael Atkinson.  It was Atkinson’s job to review the technical details about the FISA assembly, and yes, it is also obvious Atkinson later moved to the ICIG position and helped frame the impeachment narrative.  Use the FISA leak aspect to open up Atkinson.

From Atkinson you get to another key player, Atkinson’s former boss, Mary McCord.  Get her in the witness box under the auspices of her knowledge about the FISA warrant that she submitted and you open up an entire new network of conspirators and specific questions related to her activity as Acting Asst Deputy Attorney General in the National Security Division, and beyond to her activity questioning Michael Flynn, the leak of the Flynn cuts, and as lead staff for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler on the impeachment effort.

Start at March 17, 2017, and expand the network from there.

We know from the indictment itself the investigation of James Wolfe was completed by December 15, 2017, when he was fired from his position.  Wolfe’s indictment did not surface for another six months – until June 08, 2018.   Wolfe was indicted for lying to the FBI investigators.  However, Wolfe was not indicted for leaking the FISA application despite the FBI having direct evidence of the leak; which was then sworn and affirmed in Wolfe’s December 2018 sentencing memo [pictured below] when the U.S. Attorney Office in DC requested an upward departure for longer term sentencing, specifically because Wolfe leaked top secret classified information.

Wolfe leaked the FISA application!  Pull that string….

RESOURCES:

1.  Adam Waldman text messages. (release date Feb 9, 2018)

https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele#

2. Justice Dept. Letter to journalist Ali Watkins (release date Feb 13, 2018)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4498451-Justice-Department-Records-Seizure.html

3.  James Wolfe indictment (release date June 8, 2018)

https://www.scribd.com/document/381310366/James-Wolfe-Indictment-Senate-Intelligence-Committee-Leaker#

4.  FISC / Senate Judiciary Letter (public release April, 2020 – event date July 12, 2018) The letter from DOJ-NSD (Mueller Special Proseuctors) to the FISC is important.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2018-doj-letter-to-fisc&download=1

5.  Carter Page FISA application (release date July 21, 2018)  Only need the first application section. 83 pages of original application.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384380664/2016-FISA-Application-on-Carter-Page#

6.  Government Sentencing Wolfe Case memo and recommendation for upward departure and/or variance. Filed December 11, 2018

https://www.scribd.com/document/395499292/James-Wolfe-DOJ-Sentencing-Memo-December-11

7.  Govt. Reply to Defendant (Wolfe) sentencing memo (date Dec 14, 2018)  Govt. Exhibit #13 (two page attestation is critical).

https://www.scribd.com/document/395775597/Wolfe-Case-DOJ-Response-to-Defense-Sentencing-Memo

Misc:

July 27, 2018,  – Wall Street Journal  – Wolfe lawyers threaten SSCI subpoenas.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-intelligence-committee-aides-lawyers-want-testimony-from-senators-1532692801?mod=e2tw

Dec 11, 2018 – Politico – Senators seek Leniency –

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/senate-intelligence-committee-leaking-james-wolfe-1059162