Where are we at as of 1450 CET?

Talks continuing, could go on for a while longer. One informed source is suggesting that because the fish deal was agreed at the high political level (btn @vonderleyen and @BorisJohnson) it was left to officials to translate it into real numbers

NEW: European Commission president @vonderleyen: As things stand I cannot tell you whether there will be a deal or not, but I can tell you there is a path to an agreement now. The path may be very narrow but it is there.

2/ VDL - it is therefore our responsibility to continue trying.

3/ Commission president says the "good news" is we have found a way forward on most issues, but this is now a case of being "so close and yet being so far away from each other."

4/ VDL - level playing field: our aim is simply fair competition on our own market.

Says the "architecture" of a level playing field provision rests on two pillars: state aid and standards

5/ On state aid we have made progress based on common princples, guarantees of domestic enforcement, the possibility to autonomously remedy the situation where needed [ie, either side can take action if distortions of trade etc]

The DUP's Ian Paisley MP tells the NI Affaris Committee that the NI Protocol shd be "removed" and that Article 16 of the Protocol should be invoked. Describes it as an "unmitigated disaster... Those who advocated for the Protocol have some responsibility for that.

"The protocol is now an impediment to trade. We told you so."

Article 16 of the NI Protocol: "If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the EU or the UK may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.

"Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
functioning of this Protocol."

Mr Paisley then berates @Freight_NI for not demanding that Article 16 be invoked. Mr Leheny asks him what the alternative is. Mr Paisley says removing the Protocol is the alternative.

Here are some observations from the EU side on the touring issue facing musicians

2/ The European Commission offered the UK a standard mobility clause in its draft legal text back in March last year that would cover musicians, sportspersons etc... It's on page 354 of the EU's opening text ahead of the negotiations

3/ Under a standard mobility clause, acc to one official, EU member states can ask for visas for certain people coming to carry out paid activity. However, there's a list of exemptions for people who don't need visas:

4/ This list includes those "travelling for the purpose of business deliberations..., sportspersons or artists [including musicians] performing an activity on an ad-hoc basis, journalists sent by the media of their country of residence, and intra-corporate trainees."

5/ In other words, under a standard mobility provision, musicians, journalists, sports people and business people who travel to discuss contracts etc do not need visas. Officials say this is the standard EU arrangement for third countries, eg the US.

Some compelling evidence at the NI Affairs Committee this morning on Brexit, the risks of smuggling, organised crime, the "soft underbelly" of the Irish border, the loss of the European Arrest Warrant and what might replace it

2/ Giving evidence were Simon Byrne, chief constable of the PSNI, Mark McEwan, assistant chief constable, Steve Rodhouse, of the UK National Crime Agency, and Steve Tracey, of HMRC. Here's the gist of what I've just filed for @rtenews online:

3/ A UK law officer has raised the prospect of intl organised criminals trafficking drugs, people + firearms into the UK via Ireland because of tighter controls at GB ports thanks to Brexit. He also suggested that Ireland may have to tighten security at its ports accordingly.

4/ Steve Rodhouse, DG of Operations with the UK National Crime Agency, said organised criminals would be making a “fundamental choice” as to whether they continue to traffic drugs, people and firearms into the UK via English ports...

5/ ...or whether they might decide to switch routes into the UK through Northern Ireland via the Irish Republic.
Mr Rodhouse told a House of Commons committee that such trafficking was already underway through what could be termed the “soft underbelly” of the Irish border.

1. @SidneyPowell1, @LLinWood and any others who are digging into 2020 election fraud, you might want to look at Ryan Macias. He's the former acting director of the Federal Election Assistance Commission. He tested and certified Dominion systems, then profited from their failure.

(THREAD) Pre-election Russia collusion may take down Trump. It's equally possible the Trumps' pre- and post-election collusion with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel will do it—a course of collusion also connected to the Kremlin. I explain here. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

1/ I must stress how unbelievably complex the "Grand Bargain" theory of the Trump-Russia case is—a different thing from saying it's not substantiated. It's substantiated in *almost every single particular*—it just *also* happens to be very confusing. Not byzantine—just confusing.

2/ The basics: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE all view Iran as their chief regional enemy. Iran is propped up by Russia. Therefore the Saudis, Israelis, and Emiratis all need a US government willing to find a way to get the Kremlin to *stop* supporting Iran in the Middle East.

3/ The best way to get Russia to stop supporting Iran—or reduce support—was/is to drop all sanctions on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea, as that'd be worth *trillions* to the Kremlin over the next decade. Everyone knew that Clinton wouldn't do this—and that Trump would.

4/ Per the NYT, on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met secretly at Trump Tower with a Saudi and Emirati emissary, George Nader, as well as an Israeli intelligence expert, Joel Zamel, with *significant* ties to both Israeli intelligence *and* Russian oligarchs allied with Putin.

(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.

And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.

3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.

4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?

Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.

5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?

(1-6)
Some serious Political theatre went down today.

How many people worked out what was portrayed right in-front of them?

Watch how this plays out.
https://t.co/KkrXreeNof

(2-6) MP Catherine Cummings booed off stage.
Good luck getting any Dr’s on board.

(3-6) And the show continues to launch the Reignite Democracy Political Party.

(4-6) What a setup. Love the glove prop just ready to go.

(5-6) And here it is. We are coming for all the marginal seats.

How much is Jim Penman still involved behind the scenes?

1. @JonathanTurley
Trump has only been out of office and, therefore, no longer (purportedly) immunized from criminal prosecution for ~1 month. Also, because of R delay, Garland is still awaiting confirmation. Once Garland is AG, expect a thorough



2. investigation of Trump for inciting insurrection in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Once that investigation is completed, based on the information that is currently public, there is a good chance that Trump will be prosecuted for violating

3. 18 U.S.C. 2383, together with other federal crimes. Not absolutely guaranteed. But a very good chance. The only element of inciting insurrection that is open to credible dispute is Trump’s intent. Is there sufficient evidence that he intended his speech to incite imminent

4. lawlessness? As you know (or should know), criminal intent is invariably established by circumstantial evidence. That means prosecutors must analyze everything Trump did and said (and didn't do or say) before, during and after his incendiary speech.

5. That investigation takes time. Sometimes a lot of time to empanel a grand jury and begin issuing subpoenas and seeking warrants. The fact that Trump's previous crimes, including the 10 felonies outlined in Vol. II of Mueller's report, haven't been prosecuted is irrelevant.