Within Hours of Strzok and McCabe Covering up Contents of Weiner Laptop, Strzok’s Wife Was Promoted to SEC Deputy Director (Video)

by N.Morgan


None of us will forget the moment when Rep. Louie Gohmert called Peter Strzok out for cheating on his wife, in front of millions of people, thus pointing out Strzok issue with telling the truth.

Some people felt it was a bit disrespectful to Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman. She, like her “husband”, works for the Deep State.

Ladies and Gentlemen…We have our smoking gun, and here’s how:

Now…think back to the purpose of the Strzok hearings:

The purpose of the Strzok hearings was to find out whether or not Strzok’s BIAS influenced his decisions in the Clinton Investigation.

His wife was a fixer for Hillary Clinton and that is exactly what she did.

Remember when the Weiner laptop was discovered, and the FBI found classified emails from Hillary Clinton on it?

Apparently, it is the job of the SEC Deputy Director to decide whether or not a case is to proceed to a full investigation. Within hours of Strzok and McCabe being debriefed on the contents of the Weiner laptop, Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, was promoted to the position of SEC Deputy Director.

Remember the countless times the Clinton Foundation has been accused of crimes but nothing was sent over to the FBI or Justice Department?

It was Melissa Hodgman covering for the Clinton’s and deciding no charges should be made.

This is true deep state stuff. She even uses her maiden name to keep hidden from the public that she is married to Peter Strzok. Such a simple sleight of hand, so the public wouldn’t know, and remain in the dark about the truth.

Salary Information:


Press Release:







More Stories Contributed By N. Morgan


It’s Really Really Bad Folks! House Intel Committee Released Classified Memo Without Redaction’s (Videos)

Guest contributor John Rolls

Daily News

Published on Jul 18, 2018

What is Nunes’ FISA memo? 6 things to know about the secret document

The controversial memo detailing alleged federal surveillance abuses was declassified and released Friday following approval by President Trump.

The memo, put together by House Republicans, shows improper surveillance techniques used by the Department of Justice and the FBI in the Russia investigation, GOP lawmakers said.

Democrats have dismissed the memo, arguing that it was selectively edited by Republicans to push a narrative that the Russia investigation is biased against the president. They have their own rebuttal memo they hope to soon release.

Read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/07/what-is-nunes-fisa-memo-6-things-to-know-about-secret-document.html


Peter Strzok’s Girlfriend Blows the Whistle (Video)

by N. Morgan


The Republicans had hoped to have the testimony of Lisa Page already in hand when they started questioning Peter Strzok, but on Wednesday, 11 July 2018, Lisa Page foiled that strategy by refusing to comply with a subpoena and be questioned by the committee in private.

Instead, she presented herself two days later, let the testimony of Peter Strzok set the tone before sharing her version of things.

Speaking with select House committee members, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page was “cooperative” and “credible” during a closed-door session which lasted nearly five hours on Friday, 13 July 2018.

U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows, Republican from North Carolina, had been among Page’s harshest critics heading into the session, but he said her cooperation during the session, “speaks well of her,” according to the Hill.

“She’s been willing to help in the spirit of transparency. … We’ve certainly learned additional things today,”Meadows said.

In the private testimony, she primarily answered questions about the text messages with Peter Strzok which allegedly showed bias against then-candidate Donald Trump, the New York Post reported.

Meadows called Page a “credible witness,” as he walked out of the hearing, the report said.

U.S. Rep. John Ratcliffe, Republican from Texas, was more concerned with corroborating Lisa Page’s account with that of Strzok.

A Democratic congressional source told the Hill that two hours into the interview, Lisa Page did not appear to have contradicted Strzok’s testimony in any way.

“Lisa Page is not an FBI employee, but the FBI was here providing counsel and giving her direction as to which questions to answer or not answer and there is a question as to the propriety of that before the House,”

According to the Hill, Matt Gaetz, Republican from Florida, questioned the presence of the FBI providing legal support. “Lisa Page is not an FBI employee, but the FBI was here providing counsel and giving her direction as to which questions to answer or not answer, and there is a question as to the propriety of that before the House.”

Matt Gaetz also said he found the testimony of Lisa Page to be “more credible” than Strzok, the New York Post reported.

Lisa Page turned on Peter Strzok and is Telling Them EVERYTHING!

The investigation into the emails of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and the implications of their actions are just the latest in a string of events, missteps, and cover-ups which have taken place in the federal justice system, all kept hidden from American citizens for so long.

Disclosures in recent years have revealed public officials at the highest levels – White House, U.S. Senate, judiciary – guilty of dishonest and illegal behavior resulting even in death.

During this same period of time, the law itself became a weapon to be used by Government against American citizens. This has resulted in the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of individuals for actions which were not even criminal, and the ultimate destruction of all faith by the public in the current justice system.

It will take time for the American public to begin to believe again in the federal justice system because of the rampant corruption which has now been revealed. The slow judiciary actions to remove and prosecute those revealed to be at fault will only delay this return of faith.





More Stories Contributed By N. Morgan

Checkmate, Trump’s China Syndrome (Videos)

by N.Morgan


The complicated and complex relationship between China and the United States spans the pages of history.

China has notoriously taken advantage of the goodwill shown by the United States on the financial front and the trading scene.

President Trump has been very open in his opinion about how for years China has been unfair in its trade practices with the United States.

President Trump: “China has consistently taken advantage of the American economy with practices that undermine fair and reciprocal trade”.

Examples of unfair trading are:

  • China has pursued industrial policies and unfair trade practices—including dumping, discriminatory non-tariff barriers, forced technology transfer, overcapacity and industrial subsidies—that champion Chinese firms and make it impossible for many United States firms to compete on a level playing field.
  • China’s industrial policies, such as its “Made in China 2025” plan, harm companies in the United States and around the world.
  • China imposes much higher tariffs on United States exports than the United States imposes on China.
    • China’s average tariff rate is nearly three times higher than the average United States rate.
    • Certain products are even more imbalanced. For instance, the United States charges a 2.5 percent tariff on Chinese cars, while China currently maintains a 25 percent tariff on cars from the United States.
  • China has banned imports of United States agricultural products such as poultry, cutting off America’s ranchers and farmers from a major market for their goods.
  • China has dumped and unfairly subsidized a range of goods for the United States market, undermining America’s domestic industry.
    • In 2018 alone, the Trump Administration has found dumping or unfair subsidies on 13 different products, including steel wheels, cold-drawn mechanical tubing, tool chests and cabinets, forged steel fittings, aluminum foil, rubber bands, cast iron soil pipe and fittings, and large diameter welded pipe.
  • In January 2018, the Trump Administration found that China’s overproduction of steel and aluminum, and the resulting impact on global markets, is a circumstance that threatens to impair America’s national security.
  • The United States has run a trade in goods deficit with China for years, including a $375 billion deficit in 2017 alone.

China has aggressively sought to obtain technology from American companies and undermine American innovation and creativity. There have recently been reports that China actively sends Chinese “agents” to the United States, often disguised as students, to learn about and steal new technologies and intellectual resources.

  • The value of China’s intellectual property theft costs United States innovators billions of dollars a year, and China accounts for 87 percent of counterfeit goods seized coming into the United States.
  • United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Section 301 investigation identified four of China’s aggressive technology policies which put 44 million American technology jobs at risk:
    • Forced technology transfer;
    • Requiring licensing at less than economic value;
    • Chinese state-directed acquisition of sensitive United States technology for strategic purposes; and
    • Outright cyber theft.
  • China uses foreign ownership restrictions, administrative review and licensing processes to force or pressure technology transfers from American companies.
    • China requires foreign companies that access their New Energy Vehicles market to transfer core technologies and disclose development and manufacturing technology.
    • China imposes contractual restrictions on the licensing of intellectual property and technology by foreign firms into China but does not put the same restrictions on contracts between two Chinese enterprises.
  • China directs and facilitates investments in and acquisitions of United States companies to generate large-scale technology transfer.
  • China conducts and supports cyber intrusions into United States computer networks to gain access to valuable business information so Chinese companies can copy products.

President Trump has begun taking long overdue action to finally address the source of the problem, the unfair trade practices of China which hurt America’s workers and our innovative industries.

The Chinese Revolution of 1949

On October 1, 1949, Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong declared the creation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The announcement ended the costly full-scale civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), which broke out immediately following World War II and had been preceded by on and off conflict between the two sides since the 1920’s. The creation of the PRC also completed the long process of governmental upheaval in China begun by the Chinese Revolution of 1911.

The “fall” of mainland China to communism in 1949 led the United States to suspend diplomatic ties with the PRC for decades.

The outbreak of the Korean War, which pitted the PRC and the United States on opposite sides of an international conflict, ended any opportunity for accommodation between the PRC and the United States. Truman’s desire to prevent the Korean conflict from spreading south led to the U.S. policy of protecting the Chiang Kai-shek government on Taiwan.

For close to thirty years after the Chinese revolution of 1949, there were few contacts, limited trade and no diplomatic ties between the two countries.

Until the late 1970s, the United States continued to recognize the Republic of China, located on Taiwan, as China’s true government and supported that government’s holding of the Chinese seat in the United Nations.

History of Chinese Foreign Trade

Beginning in the late 1970s, China reversed the Maoist economic development strategy and, by the early 1980s, had committed itself to a policy of being more open to the outside world and widening foreign economic relations and trade.

The opening up policy led to the reorganization and decentralization of foreign trade institutions, the adoption of a legal framework to facilitate foreign economic relations and trade, direct foreign investment, the creation of special economic zones, the rapid expansion of foreign trade, the importation of foreign technology and management methods, involvement in international financial markets and participation in international foreign economic organizations.

These changes not only benefited the Chinese economy but also integrated China into the world economy.

In 1985, the United States had just begun a growing trade deficit with China. During the 1990s, the United States trade deficit became a more excessive long-running trade deficit, mostly with Asia. By 2012, the U.S. trade deficit, fiscal budget deficit, and federal debt had increased to record or near-record levels following the implementation of broad unconditional or unilateral United States free trade policies and formal trade agreements during the preceding decades.

China has seen substantial economic growth over a 50 year period, and at a nuclear-security summit which took place in early 2010, President Obama hoped to ensure another 50 years of growth between the two countries. On April 19, 2010, President Obama met with China’s President Hu Jintao to discuss trade policies between the two countries.

The U.S.–China Relations Act of 2000 was an act which granted permanent normal trade relations to China; it was signed on October 10, 2000, by President Bill Clinton.

Prior to passage of the bill, China was subject to an annual review of its trade status with the United States. The act removed the review, eased some trade barriers and facilitated China’s entry into the World Trade Organization.

Despite growing commercial ties, the bilateral economic relationship (between China and the United States) has become increasingly complex and often fraught with tension. From the United States’ perspective, many trade tensions stem from China’s incomplete transition to a free market economy.

While China has significantly liberalized its economic and trade regimes over the past three decades, it continues to maintain (or has recently imposed) a number of state-directed policies that appear to distort trade and investment flows.

Major areas of concern expressed by United States policymakers and stakeholders include China’s alleged widespread cyber economic espionage against US firms; relatively ineffective record of enforcing intellectual property rights (IPR); discriminatory innovation policies; mixed record on implementing its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations; extensive use of industrial policies (such as subsidies and trade and investment barriers) to promote and protect industries favored by the (Chinese) government; and interventionist policies to influence the value of its (China’s) currency.

Many United States policymakers argue that such policies adversely impact our economic interests, and have contributed to United States’ job losses in some sectors.

United States-China trade rose rapidly after the two nations reestablished diplomatic relations in January 1979, signed a bilateral trade agreement in July 1979 and provided mutual most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment, beginning in 1980.

In that year (which was shortly after China’s economic reforms began), total United States-China trade (exports plus imports) was approximately $4 billion.

China ranked as the United States’ 24th largest trading partner, 16th largest export market and 36th largest source of imports. In 2017, total U.S. merchandise trade with China was $636 billion, making China the United States’ largest trading partner.

Currently, President Trump is attempting to turn these failed trade policies around. The required chnages will not happen without some suffering, but once the pain is over, America will prosper again. The liberal left has been pushing their New World Order for some time now, and President Trump’s new China policy could turn the tables on the globalists.








More Stories Contributed By N. Morgan

‘People Will Go to Jail’: #ReleaseTheMemo Trends As Republicans Call For Releasing ‘Shocking’ Classified Memo Showing ‘FISA Abuses’ In Russian Collusion Investigation +Video


Guest Contributor John Rolls

On Thursday, Republican members of the House took to Twitter to call for the release of a classified intelligence memo they say could blow the lid off the Russian collusion investigation. House Intelligence Committee Republicans voted to make a classified report on FISA abuse available to House members, who could read the report behind closed doors. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) appeared on Fox Business Network, where he stated that the memo challenged “the very foundations of democracy,” adding, “if the American people knew what was happening if they saw the contents of this memo, a lot would become clear about the information that I’ve been talking about the last several months.” The memo concerns the Obama FBI, Department of Justice, and then-candidate Trump.

Gaetz added, “I think that this will not end just with firings. I believe there are people who will go to jail. You don’t get to try to undermine our country, undermine our elections, and then simply get fired.”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) stated, “I viewed the classified report from House Intel relating to the FBI, FISA abuses, the infamous Russian dossier, and so-called ‘Russian collusion.’ What I saw is absolutely shocking.”

I viewed the classified report from House Intel relating to the FBI, FISA abuses, the infamous Russian dossier, and so-called “Russian collusion.” What I saw is absolutely shocking.

This report needs to be released–now. Americans deserve the truth. #ReleaseTheMemo pic.twitter.com/oP2UNujKQL

— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) January 19, 2018

So, what could be in the memo? An educated guess would suggest that the memo shows that the FBI initiated its investigation based on the so-called Steele Dossier, a compendium of opposition research compiled by Fusion GPS on the instructions of the Democratic National Committee. If it is indeed the case that FISA warrants were requested on the basis of DNC-funded opposition research, that would appear to politicize the FBI in serious ways. Lee Smith of Tablet Magazine correctly writes:

[I]f the FBI and Department of Justice used a piece of opposition research paid for by a political campaign as evidence for a warrant to intercept the communications of a rival campaign-and the questions asked by congressional investigators suggest they did-then we are now living in a very different America than the one that generations of civil libertarians and small-government conservatives alike desired to maintain, and which large majorities in Congress have repeatedly voted for. The DOJ, the FBI and perhaps the CIA would be embroiled in a scandal likely to have long-lasting and sweeping consequences for intelligence collection, national security, and the safety and privacy of American citizens, to say nothing of how it will demoralize federal law enforcement, which will appear to be mired in partisanship and political corruption. Even more disconcerting is the increasing likelihood that the Steele dossier was used as a platform for a Russian information operation, which successfully managed to leverage nearly the entire American press corps and sections of the security bureaucracy toward the goal of encouraging Americans to rip their own country apart.

Buckle your seatbelts. This could be a bumpy ride.



Patient Diplomacy with Nuclear North Korea is MAD

Guest contributor John Rolls

The mind of dictator Kim Jong Un and North Korean elites is seemingly incomprehensible to the U.S. Department of State, that continues to believe a policy of escalating sanctions will eventually persuade Pyongyang to surrender its nuclear missiles-although the policy has failed for 25 years.

Most Americans, and apparently the President of the United States himself, are losing faith in a negotiated solution to the North Korean nuclear missile threat.

Thae Young Ho-More Appeasement Please

Enter Thae Yong Ho, high-ranking diplomat and North Korean defector, who in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on November 1, 2017, told the State Department and the foreign policy establishment exactly what they want to hear:

“We should continue the current momentum of sanctions and campaign of diplomatic isolation.  I think it is the only way to force North Korea to give up its nuclear ambition,” according to Thae.

A privileged member of North Korea’s aristocracy, defecting as deputy ambassador to the United Kingdom in 2016, Thae Yong Ho’s testimony is highly valuable-less for his recommendations, and more for what it reveals about the thinking of North Korean elites.

Thae recommends a personal meeting with Kim Jong Un warning that continued nuclearization will only end in catastrophe.  But offering, in exchange for surrendering nuclear weapons,  normalization of international relations, security guarantees for Kim’s dynasty, and economic benefits to build a prosperous North Korea.

But wait.  Wasn’t that President Bill Clinton’s deal, his Agreed Framework (2004-2012)?  Yes, it was.

If the U.S. now revives an even more generous version of the Agreed Framework, would that confirm to Pyongyang that nuclear blackmail works?  Certainly.

Thae Yong Ho is obviously an intelligent man, sincerely seeking a negotiated solution to  growing nuclear crisis with North Korea.  But he also obviously has been immersed so long in the waters of the western diplomatic community that he has absorbed its idealistic values, swallowed whole its boundless faith in negotiated solutions, and “gone native”-which is why he defected.

“Some people do not believe in soft power but only in military options,” according to Thae.  As if the problem in Washington is too little diplomatic patience, and too many hawks wanting to bomb North Korea.

In fact, Washington elites-including in the Department of Defense-are so terrified of a nuclear war with North Korea that military options, even surgical conventional strikes, may no longer really be on the table.  Only President Trump himself gives hope to those of us who believe the time for diplomacy is past.

The Truth Will Not Set North Korea Free

Thae Yong Ho speaks hopefully about how “soft power” and patient diplomacy liberated Eastern Europe from Soviet domination, led to the disintegration of the USSR, and won the Cold War.  He is confident that if only the North Korean people knew the truth-that Kim Jong Un is not God, that North Korea is not Paradise, that Freedom is possible, that life is better everywhere else in the world-then the North Korean regime would have to change or face revolution.

So Thae’s “soft power” strategy for denuclearizing North Korea is Radio Free Korea and somehow smuggling to the North Korean masses the means to access the internet and learn about the outside world.

Thae, who lived the life of a highly privileged member of North Korea’s elite, appears unaware, or insufficiently aware, of the lives of absolute oppression, brain-washing, and perpetual fear that is the lot of most North Koreans.  Other defectors, Yeonmi Park, for example, daughter of a North Korean government official, was raised to believe Kim Jong Un is God and that he could read everyone’s thoughts.

Such an Orwellian 1984 thoroughly brainwashed society is the least fertile ground imaginable for re-educating North Korea’s fanatically loyal people. 

Thae himself lived in the West for many years as a diplomat with full access to the truth about North Korea from mass media and the western diplomatic community-yet he did not turn against North Korea and defect until facing return to Pyongyang with his westernized children.  Thae’s example is not encouraging for the prospect of raising revolution among North Korea’s masses.  Nor have North Korea’s masses revolted when starving to death and imprisoned in concentration camps by the hundreds of thousands.

So Thae’s hope that better informing North Korea’s people will compel Pyongyang to reform, or spark regime change, is unrealistic.  Revolution in a North Korea armed with ICBMs that can strike the United States may not even be a good idea.

Disarm Nuclear North Korea Now

The Cold War with the USSR, that did eventually discredit communism among the Russian people and achieve regime change peacefully, lasted 45 years.  Do we really have years or decades to wage a new Cold War with North Korea, when geostrategic and technological circumstances have changed radically?


There are many compelling reasons-including the mindset of North Korean elites described by Thae Yong Ho-to act militarily now.  (See my article “Disarming Nuclear North Korea” Family Security Matters, September 29, 2017, for one example of limited conventional surgical strikes that could disarm North Korea of those nuclear forces posing the greatest threat to the United States, could be executed in a few hours, and are calculated to minimize escalatory risk.)

Risky as even surgical conventional strikes against North Korea may be, the dangers of continuing patient diplomacy are far riskier.  Some of these dangers are explained below.

Mutual Assured Destruction Not A Good Idea

Buying time for sanctions and diplomacy to peacefully disarm nuclear North Korea means entrusting our lives to a Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) relationship with the psychopath in Pyongyang.

North Korea can already make an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that would blackout the North American grid and threaten the very existence of the United States.  Will Kim Jong Un tolerate watching North Korea ground-down, and regime survival threatened, by economic sanctions-and not revenge himself on the U.S. with an EMP attack?

U.S. economic sanctions moved Imperial Japan to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941, forcing a peaceable and isolationist America into World War II.  Yet Japanese Emperor Hirohito was a paragon of humanity and non-aggression compared to Kim Jong Un.

North Korea Will Sell The Bomb

Thae Yong Ho testifies that North Korea will sell nuclear weapons to Iran and to anyone:  “Absolutely, because North Korea is a country who wants to sell anything for the hard currency.”

“U.S. Intelligence Community Claims North Korea Transferred 3 Nuclear Warheads To Iran” is the headline of an article by Franklin Lamb published in EurasianReview.com yesterday (December 10, 2017).

According to Lamb, citing sources in the U.S. Intelligence Community: “The three DRNK nuclear warheads and the ‘dirty bomb’ deliveries to Iran allegedly took place during the Spring of 2017.  They were transported under heavy guard from Pyongyang’s Sunan International Airport on four separate North Korean regularly scheduled passenger flights of its Air Koryo airline to Iran…”

These unconfirmed allegations, whether or not they are true, are entirely plausible.

This alone-the risk of an A-Bomb or H-Bomb transferring to Iran or terrorists-is reason enough to destroy North Korea’s nuclear weapons program now.

North Korean Nuclear Weapons Non-Negotiable

Despite Thae Yong Ho’s endorsement of patient diplomacy to disarm nuclear North Korea, his description of the paranoia and deep distrust of the U.S. by North Korean elites would seem to make a diplomatic solution impossible.

Thae testifies the example of Libya looms large in the minds of North Korean elites.  Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program, in exchange for promises of normalized relations with the West, only to be betrayed.  NATO intervened in the Libyan civil war against Gaddafi, who was executed by his own people.

Likewise, in Iraq, dictator Saddam Hussein’s failure to complete his nuclear weapons program contributed to a Second Persian Gulf War with the U.S., and Saddam’s defeat and execution, according to North Korea’s interpretation of events.

Thae acknowledges this history makes the U.S. untrustworthy to Pyongyang.  He fails to explain why these precedents are not insurmountable obstacles to a diplomatic solution in the minds of North Korean elites.

Why Thae and the U.S. State Department would trust North Korea to keep any promise to give-up nuclear weapons, after it cheated on the Agreed Framework and has repeatedly broken its word and international law, is a psychological mystery.

North Korea’s Nuclear Hair-Trigger

Thae Yong Ho’s testimony implies nuclear command and control arrangements may be on a hair-trigger, with low-level commands pre-authorized to launch nuclear missiles if North Korea is attacked.  According to Thae, Pyongyang’s thousands of artillery and missiles in range of Seoul-armed with conventional, chemical and biological warheads-are pre-authorized to destroy South Korea’s capitol immediately, if North Korea is struck.

The same logic applied to ICBMs would virtually guarantee nuclear missile strikes on the U.S. by accident or miscalculation.

North Korea has no early warning satellites or long-range early warning radars to provide up to 30 minutes of notification that an attack is incoming, so they can retaliate.  They have tactical radars that could provide very short warning, 5-10 minutes against bombers that are not flying below radar.  Most North Korean missiles, including ICBMs, are liquid-fueled and need a lot more time, at least 90 minutes and perhaps hours, to be readied for launch.

So North Korea must depend upon strategic warning provided by its paranoid intelligence services and military leaders (relying at least partially on western press and TV reporting) to decide if they are about to be attacked, and therefore must launch a retaliatory or preemptive strike.

Or North Korea may also rely upon its friends, Russia and China, to warn them when they must launch missiles.  Thus, Beijing and Moscow could use North Korea to wage a nuclear war by proxy-merely by misinforming Pyongyang.

Washington elites and the State Department refuse to face the fact that this is the real reason China and Russia will not help the U.S. disarm North Korea through negotiations.  Russia and China helped build the North Korean nuclear threat to serve their geostrategic interests.

North Korea’s nuclear hair-trigger, that could be pulled by so many different fingers, is another reason to destroy at least North Korea’s ICBMs immediately.

North Korea’s Plans For Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear War

Thae Yong Ho’s testimony reveals, inadvertently, that the only reason Kim Jong Un has not yet attacked the United States may be because of his confidence in the efficacy of nuclear blackmail: “He would continue to blackmail America with a possible nuclear war against America and…to pull American forces from South Korea.”

Thae testifies that Kim plans to use nuclear threats to force the United States to abandon South Korea, which can then be conquered by the North.  According to Thae, Kim Jong Un sees “the existence of a prosperous and democratic South Korea…by itself a major threat toward his dynasty..he also believes it necessary to drive American forces out of the peninsula.  And this can be done, he believes, by being able to credibly threaten the United States with nuclear weapons.”

According to Thae, North Korean elites see in the Vietnam War good reason to think they can win a new Korean War.  In their view, Vietnam proves American political will can be broken.  When the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, South Vietnam quickly weakened, enabling easy conquest by North Vietnam.

Thus, North Korean nuclear weapons are not just for deterrence and regime survival, but to launch a war of aggression.

North Korea A “Crazy State”

Strategic thinker and historian Edward Luttwak long ago categorized North Korea as a “crazy state.”  North Korea’s exceptionally violent and oppressive history has spawned a warped strategic culture, generations of elites with bizarre interpretations of reality, grossly exaggerated threat perceptions, and hyper-aggressive.  To outside observers from different societies with a more benign history, especially democracies, North Korea appears irrational, insane, “crazy.”

Thae Yong Ho’s testimony unwittingly confirms the “crazy state” diagnosis for North Korea.  For example, Thae describes how Pyongyang interprets the origins of the Korean War as further proof that the U.S can be cowed by nuclear blackmail.  

According to Thae, North Korean elites see U.S. fear of nuclear weapons and susceptibility to nuclear blackmail dating back to January 12, 1950, when Secretary of State Dean Acheson excluded South Korea from the U.S. Pacific “defense perimeter” in a speech to the Washington Press Club.  Thae testifies North Korean elites believe the Soviet A-bomb tested in 1949, U.S. fear of nuclear war with the USSR, moved Acheson to exclude South Korea from the “defense perimeter.”

So Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un’s grandfather, launched the Korean War-despite the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea and U.S. possession of nuclear weapons.

Apparently, North Korean elites learned exactly the wrong lessons from the Korean and Vietnam wars, seeing in both evidence of U.S. weakness.

MADness Of Patient Diplomacy

Mutual Assured Destruction is likely to become exactly that against North Korean elites enamored of nuclear blackmail, and ready to go to war over a mistake made in a speech at the Washington Press Club.

The Free World fears Kim Jong Un’s reckless behavior now, when he has only a dozen ICBMs.  What will the North Korean “crazy state” do when it has 50 or 100 ICBMs?

Patient diplomacy is becoming our form of insanity.  Disarm nuclear North Korea now.


FBI Director Won’t Tell Congress If “Dossier” Formed Basis of Trump-Russia Investigation

Guest Contributor John Rolls

Two simple questions: How did the FBI’s Russia investigation start? And was it started because the Trump “dossier” was presented to somebody at the FBI?

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) asked FBI director Christopher Wray those questions at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, but he got no answers:

“How did the Russia investigation start?” DeSantis asked Wray. “Did (FBI counterintelligence agent)Peter Strzok — was he — did he start it?”

Wray answered, “I’m  not aware of who started the investigation within the FBI.”

DeSantis followed up: “Was it started because the dossier was presented to somebody in the FBI?”

“I don’t have the answer to that question,” Wray said.

DeSantis asked Wray if he could get back to the committee with the answer:

“Well, if there’s information that we can provide that — without compromising the ongoing special counsel investigation, I’m happy to see what there is that we can do to be responsive,” Wray said.

Earlier in the hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) drilled down on FBI agent Peter Strzok, the former deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI who has been reassigned to the FBI’s human resources department after the discovery that he sent anti-Trump/pro-Clinton text messages to another FBI agent with whom he was having an affair.

Jordan told the committee that Strzok was a “key player” in the the Clinton email investigation; he changed the wording in Director Comey’s letter exonerating Hillary Clinton, swapping the term “extreme carelessness” for “gross negligence” apparently because the latter phrase might have legal implication; Strzok also was a “key player” in the Trump-Russia investigation; he ended up on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team until the discovery of his text messages; and he interviewed former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Jordan questioned why someone like Strzok would be selected for Mueller’s team — and why he’d be kicked off it:

“If you kicked everybody off Mueller’s team who was anti-Trump, I don’t think there’d be anybody left,” Jordan said. “There’s got to be something more here. It can’t just be some text messages that show a pro-Clinton, anti-Trump bias. There’s got to be something more. And I’m trying to figure out what it is,” Jordan said.

“But my hunch is it has something to do with the dossier. Director, did Peter Strzok help produce and present the application to the FISA court to secure a warrant to spy on Americans associated with the Trump campaign?”

Wray refused to discuss anthing having to do with the FISA process in an open setting.

“We’re not talking about what happened in the court,” Jordan said. “We’re talking about what the FBI took to the court, the application. Did Peter Strzok — was he involved in taking that to the court?”

Wray again refused to discuss it.

“Let’s remember a couple of things about the dossier,” Jordan said.

“The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Christopher Steele, who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier, full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage.

“And it’s been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document, that it became the basis for granting a warrant to spy on Americans.

“And I’m wondering — I’m wondering if that actually took place,” Jordan said. “It sure looks like it did, and the easiest way to clear it up is for you guys to tell us what was in that application and who took it there.”

Wray said the FBI has had “extensive interaction with both intelligence committees” on the FBI’s dealings with the FISA court, “and I think that’s the appropriate setting for those questions.”

Jordan was upset: “Here’s what I think, Director Wray. I think Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI; Peter Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton investigation, did all the interviews; Peter Strzok, the guy who was running the Russian investigation at the FBI; Peter Strzok, Mr. Super Agent at the FBI — I think he’s the guy who took the application to the FISA court.

“And if that happened — I mean, think — if this happened, if you had the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats’ campaign, taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document and taking it to the FISA court so they could spy on the other campaign — if that happened, that is as wrong as gets.

“And you know what?” Jordan asked. “Maybe I’m wrong. You could clear it all up. You could clear it all up for all of us here — all the Congress who wants to know, and frankly, all of America who wants to know — you could clear all up by releasing — we sent you a letter two days ago — just release the application.

“Tell us what was in it. Tell us if I’m wrong. But I don’t think I am. I think that’s exactly what happened. And, if it did, it is as wrong as it can be, and people who did that need to be held accountable.”

Wray said he will not  hesitate to hold people accountable “after there has been an appropriate investigation, independent and objective, by the inspector general.”

Later, Rep. DeSantis asked Wray if Strzok was involved in the FBI’s conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election.

Wray refused to answer, saying the question “goes right to the heart of the special counsel investigation.”

Courtesy of CNSNews.com