Mark Langfan

Trump puts the Korean horse ahead of the Iranian cart

How Trump has dramatically outbid Iran for North Korea’s nuclear tech by many, many billions of dollars.

Published on by

The pundits don’t stop yammering and carping on every step President Trump takes to solve the greatest threats the world has ever seen: The joint North Korean/Iranian development of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles systems to deliver them.

But, despite 24 years of what any objective observer would see as the abject systemic failure of 3 different US administrations to solve the Korean/Iranian nuclear file, the media does nothing but act like 24 years of failures have been successful. Their experts appear to fatuously opine Trump should continue with the same appeasement idiocy three different US administrations have applied to the Iran/North Nuclear nuclear problem.

Instead, Trump has hewed to a 2-step common sense approach. First, divide and conquer. Second, isolate the real nuclear emergency priority: North Korea. In effect, Trump is ingeniously putting the North Korean nuclear “horse” in front of the Iranian nuclear “cart,” and thus Trump stands to use common sense to successfully solve both the North Korea and Iranian nuclear problems.

Why is the North Korean nuclear file the “horse,” and not the “cart”? North Korea is the “horse” or the first to be focused on because North Korea actually already has the nuclear bomb, and Iran relies on North Korea’s technical nuclear expertise to develop its own. So, if President Trump can turn North Korea, he has at best, paralyzed, and at worst, dramatically slowed Iran’s progress and pathway to an actual functional nuclear weapon.

Obama did the exact opposite and put the Iranian nuclear “cart” before the North Korean nuclear “horse.” So, instead of stopping the nuclear technology at its source, Obama infused Iran with hundreds of billions of dollars for Iran to actually pay North Korea for a nuclear bomb. Instead of stopping both Iran and North Korea from attaining Nuclear weapons, Obama appears to have done everything to enable both rogue terrorist nations to attain nuclear weapons. What’s worse, Obama set the catastrophically bad example of bombing Mummar Qaddafi out of power where even though the Libyan dictator had volunteered to give up his nuclear weapons.

Not only did Obama set a horrible example in Libya, he also inflated North Korea’s conventional expectations of a nuclear windfall by appeasing Iran with complete conventional hegemony over Syria and the entire Arab world as a “carrot” for agreeing to Obama nuclear “deal” (never signed by Iran to begin with.)

Trump, in contrast, applied the “stick” to North Korea’s greatest weakness – its economy – with incredibly effective sanctions. And, at the same time, he offered a “carrot” to North Korea’s leader with an economic deal he couldn’t refuse that vastly outstripped Iran’s ability to pay North Korea for its nuclear bomb.

In short, Trump has dramatically outbid Iran for North Korea’s nuclear tech by many, many billions of dollars. How? Well, you have to look at the real organic numbers. North Korea has 25 million people who are starving. South Korea has 50 million people who are the Asian success story. But the real numbers are that North Korea has a 2016 Gross Domestic Product of about 14 Billion dollars, and South Korea has a 2016 GDP of about 1.4 Trillion dollars..

Even adjusting for the size population, South Korea’s GDP is 50 times the size of North Korea. These are two places where the people are the same and the resources are roughly the same. In fact, North Korea might even have better natural resources and water resources.

Trump’s offering North Korea economic integration with the free world, means that Kim Jun-Un stands to become one of the world’s richest man who can actually spend his money and go to a LA Laker basketball game with Dennis Rodman in Los Angeles in a chauffeured Rolls. The keys will be guaranteeing Kim and his family rights to land and resources in North Korea that can’t be taken away, and amnesty for Kim past crimes. Given he was the North’s leader for a relatively short time, the amnesty will likely not be a real barrier. And, given the immense wealth Kim would possess and possible sovereign immunity, any lawsuits against will likely be few in number, and settled rather quickly.

Therefore, in effect, when Trump decides on solving the North Korean nuclear file first, he kills two nuclear problems with one deal. Without North Korea, Iran will face impossible hurdles to build a safe nuclear bomb. And, Trump will have likely “flipped” North Korea against Iran, and will likely reap a huge intelligence windfall from North Korean Intelligence detailing all of Iran’s nuclear skeletons and JCPOA violations.

President Trump is possibly on his way to solving the world’s greatest nuclear threat – the very same one that bevies of Washington “experts” appeased into a terrible nuclear crisis.

Did Mueller suborn Comey’s “Personal Document” response?

The key expression in Comey's response on whether his memos were personal or government property is "recollection, recorded," defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Did Mueller suggest using that legal term? When?

Published on by

From the very second on May 9th, 2018, that President Trump dropped the hammer on FBI Director James Comey and fired him, Comey became a private-citizen. From that very second, Comey did not have the right to keep an FBI-embossed plastic cup, let alone vital governmental documents personally marked by Comey himself as “FOUO” “For Official Use Only.”

And, from May 17th, the day Robert Mueller was “authorized” as Special Counsel until June 8th, 2018 the day Comey testified under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is now widely reported that Mueller and Comey consulted with each other as to Comey’s likely June 8th testimony.

It is also clear that Comey and Mueller specifically knew Comey’s memos were marked “For Official Use Only” and were government property when Comey testified before the Senate that they were Comey’s “personal document[s]” he “could share with the media as [he, Comey] wanted to.”

So, the question is now joined: Did Special Counsel Mueller suborn Comey’s [likely highly perjured] June 8th testimony as to the “personal” versus the “governmental” ownership of the Comey memo documents?

Let’s review exactly what Comey testified under oath to on June 8th:

Under Republican Senator Roy Blunt’s questioning:

“BLUNT: So you didn’t consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document? You consider it to be somehow your own personal document that you could share with the media as you wanted to?

COMEY: Correct. I…

BLUNT: Through a friend?

COMEY: … I understood this to be my recollection, recorded, of my conversation with the president. As a private citizen, I felt free to share that. I thought it very important to get it out.”

The Trump legal team needs to immediately investigate exactly what role Mueller had in Comey’s testimony concerning “Government documents” that Comey testified were his own private “personal document[s].”  Or more specifically, did Mueller suggest Comey’s clearly legally prepared answer that the documents were his “recollection, recorded.”  This would be even greater perjury because Comey wrote these memos in real-time, and not after Comey was fired.  So, Comey’s testimony that the memos were his “recollection, recorded” is actually an additional evidence of a conspiracy of the Mueller Team and Comey for Comey to commit perjury.

Now, it is clear Comey delivered all his memos to Mueller as late as May 17th, 2018 when Mueller was first authorized.  Anyone looking at the memos cannot miss the bold governmental markings on the documents themselves.  So, Mueller’s first issue would be coming up with a way to explain Comey’s retention of the memos and Comey’s post-firing release of the memos to persons not authorized to receive the documents.

The key is that Comey transmitted the documents after he was fired.  This is critical because whatever authority Comey may have had before May 9th, the day Comey was fired. Comey clearly had no legal authority to possess the governmentally marked documents, let alone transmit them to a private person with directions to release the contents to the media.

Additionally, Comey’s reference to “recollection, recorded” seems to be an obvious Mueller/Comey prepared “attempted” explanation to explain Comey’s illegal post-firing possession and transmission of the memos.  The problem is that the “recollection, recorded” answer only makes the documents more “government” property than Comey’s “personal property.”

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, section 803(5) “recorded recollection” is defined as: A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’ memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.

For sake of discussion, let’s assume Comey intended these documents to be “recollection recorded” when he wrote the memos in real-time. If so, if Comey may actually intended these memos, when he wrote them as FBI Director, to be future “recollection recorded” documents, he intended these documents to be used in future legal proceedings.  What’s more governmental, they would be likely be used in criminal or impeachment legal proceedings involving the President of the United States. As such, his memos are even more definitively governmental documents and governmental property. In fact, Comey’s claim that they were “recollection recorded” documents only makes the memos more urgently governmental property than if he hadn’t intended them for future legal proceedings.

If Comey is only now coming up with the “excuse” that the memos were “recollection recorded,” it’s an excuse that shows Comey knew and knows that his memos were always “governmental property,” and that he knows he’s currently prevaricating.  Mueller and Comey likely knew the memos were government property and just made use of legal jargon that didn’t and doesn’t make “FOUO” marked documents any less government property.  In any event, Comey’s current claim that the memos were “recollection recorded” doesn’t make the memos any less the government’s property. It militates making them more “governmental property.”

The only conclusive point is that with Comey’s testimony and the new information that Mueller prepped Comey for the testimony, it is inconceivable that between May 19 and June 8th, Comey did not conspire with Mueller to come up with the exact legal formulation of “recollection recorded”  in orderr to find a legal way to parry the legal claim that the memos were governmental property and therefore, Comey wasn’t allowed to release them post-firing.  And, as such, it is highly conclusive that Mueller aided, abetted, and was invested in Comey’s untruth on June 8th concerning the specific point that the Comey memos were Comey’s “personal property,” and not “government property.”

An immediate criminal investigation must be commenced to determine whether Comey and Mueller conspired for Comey to commit perjury in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on the specific and exact question of whether the documents were “personal” or “government” property.