The OIG report on former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is devastating to the “small group” and not just for what it outlines, but also for what it doesn’t provide.
There are bound to be multiple reports and discussions which will flow from an outcome of the content therein. However, here’s some of the ‘big picture’ takeaways for those who have followed the very granular details.
One of the more pertinent issues – it is now demonstrably proven that Andrew McCabe lied to FBI investigators, on several occasions, and also that he lied to the Inspector General. Note the criminally important factor here is: “lied to FBI investigators”.
On page #29, there’s some very specific and interesting details that deserve to be highlighted (emphasis mine).
We concluded that McCabe lacked candor during his OIG audio-recorded interview under oath on July 28, 2017, when he falsely stated that: (a) he was not aware of Special Counsel being authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) he did not know, because he was out of town, “where [Special Counsel] was or what she was doing” during the relevant time period. (pdf link)
It is not just the next few paragraphs that outline the scope of the attempted duplicity and fraud by McCabe, but also the footnotes.
Remember, we know specifically from congressional evidence, provided by the FBI investigative unit, the FBI took custody of the initial batch of text message between DOJ-FBI Special Counsel Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on July 22nd, 2017. It is clear those text messages were provided by Lisa Page to clear up the contradiction between her truthful statements and the lies told earlier by Andrew McCabe.
The first IG interview with McCabe takes place on July 28th, after McCabe speaks to FBI investigators and before the IG has an opportunity to understand the evidence provided by Lisa Page proving the false statements. The footnotes here are important (emphasis mine):
[Footnote #14 – Page 20] In response to review a draft of this report, counsel for McCabe argued that, in asking McCabe about the October 27-30 texts between Special Counsel and DAD regarding the WSJ article, the OIG engaged in improper and unethical conduct, and violated an allegedly explicit agreement with McCabe that when he was interviewed by the OIG on July 28 he would not be questioned outside the presence of counsel with respect to matters for which he was being investigated.
McCabe provides no evidence in support of his claim, and based on the OIG’s review of the available evidence, including the transcript of McCabe’s recorded OIG interview on July 28 and the OIG’s contemporaneous notes, as described below, McCabe’s claim is contradicted by the investigative record.
As an initial matter, at the time of the July 28 interview, McCabe was not a subject of an OIG investigation of disclosures in the October 30 WSJ article, nor did the OIG suspect him of having been the source of an unauthorized disclosure of non-public information related to that article.
The OIG did not open its investigation of McCabe concerning the WSJ article until August 31, after being informed by INSD that McCabe had provided INSD agents with information on August 18, 2017, that contradicted the information that he had provided to INSD agents on May 9.
Second, the OIG has no record that McCabe stated in advance of the July 28 interview that he was represented by counsel. Moreover, the recording of the July 28 interview shows that at no time did McCabe give any indication that he was represented by counsel. The transcript of the interview shows that the OIG informed McCabe, who has a law degree, that the interview was about “issues raised by the text messages” between Special Counsel and DAD, and that the OIG would not be asking McCabe questions about “other issues related to your recusal in the McAulliffe investigation . . . or any issues related to that.” McCabe responded “Okay” and did not articulate or request any further limitations on the questions he would answer.
The OIG added that “This is a voluntary interview. What that means is that if you don’t want to answer a question, that’s fully within your rights.” That “will not be held against you . . . .” The recording of McCabe’s interview further demonstrates that the OIG was entirely solicitous of McCabe’s requests not to respond to certain questions.
Towards the end of the interview, before beginning an area of questioning unrelated to Special Counsel/DAD texts or the WSJ article, the OIG prefaced his question to McCabe by stating “if you feel this is connected to the things that are making you uncomfortable, will you let me know?” McCabe responded, “Yes. Yeah, you can ask, I’ll let you . . . If I don’t feel comfortable going forward, I’ll let you know.”
At a later point in the interview, after answering a number of questions unrelated to Special Counsel/DAD texts, McCabe expressed a preference for not answering further questions, and the OIG did not ask further questions on the topic.
Third, McCabe’s submission mischaracterizes an October 4, 2017, email exchange with the OIG as evidencing that at the time of McCabe’s July 28 OIG interview, McCabe was the subject of an OIG leak investigation. As noted above, the OIG did not know about McCabe’s involvement in the disclosure to the WSJ at the time of the July 28 interview, and only opened an investigation into his actions related to that disclosure on August 31, 2017, after the lack of candor referral to the OIG by INSD.
Lastly, despite having been questioned at length by the OIG on November 29, 2017, about the reasons for his false statements to the OIG on July 28, McCabe never once raised any of these issues. Moreover, the same counsel who submitted on behalf of McCabe these accusations of impropriety by the OIG was present for the entire OIG interview on November 29 yet never once raised any of these issues.
McCabe had every incentive to raise these issues as early as possible, and surely on November 29, when he was represented by counsel and was asked pointed questions by the OIG about his July 28 testimony denying that Special Counsel had been authorized to speak to reporters during that time period. McCabe did not do so until nearly 7 months after the July 28 interview and nearly 3 months after the November 29 interview.
That’s a long footnote that essentially outlines the timeline of events; and effectively eliminates any affirmative defense that McCabe might attempt.
However, more importantly, note the fact the interview was recorded and transcribed…. because that leads to the more glaring point missing from the actual IG report. There is no accompanying addendum containing the transcript or the recording. Why not?
Answer: Because the transcript and recording of the interview(s) with McCabe are now evidence for a criminal prosecution.
If Horowitz’s federal prosecutor, John Huber, was not going to criminally charge Andrew McCabe for lying we would have seen the transcript. The absence of the transcript, and the intentional notation of the recordings by the OIG, indicate McCabe will almost certainly be charged. The evidence is overwhelming.
Lastly, the release of this IG report is affirming our prior expectations. There will be several releases of individual components within the larger OIG investigation. This is only the first release, and only covers one specific issue of Andrew McCabe directing leaks to the media and then lying about it to FBI investigators.
Each of these aspects is an investigation unto itself, and will likely result in a stand-alone report:
åUnlawful and coordinated media leaks РPart I (McCabe);
åFalse statements to investigators about unauthorized media leaks РPart I;
•Clinton email, manipulated investigations with predetermined outcomes;
•False testimony to FBI, congress and under oath to IG (Comey/McCabe);
•Manipulated FBI 302 reports, and/or false presentation of documents;
•Willful political corruption by Asst. Director Andrew McCabe; Director Comey etc.
•Unlawful use of FBI and NSD databases;
•Political issues within Main Justice DOJ-NSD (Carlin, McCord, Ohr, Yates);
•Issues with the FISA court; •false presentations; •source material (Steele Dossier);
•State Department involvement. •unmasking. •origination of counterintelligence op.
The issues being investigated by the OIG are massive and complex. That’s why it would be beneficial to carve-out the FISA court aspects, declassify the content, and allow those inquiries to proceed independent of the IG and federal prosecutor John Huber.
As previously stated, the FBI raid was directed by ideologues working with special counsel Robert Mueller. The intent of the FBI home and office raid upon Michael Cohen was to assemble political opposition research. The U.S. Department of Justice and FBI confiscated files, devices, and electronic data from attorney Cohen.
Predictably, we asserted, those corrupt law enforcement officials would scrape the files for any material that would damage their political opposition. They would then leak that material to the media. This is exactly what is happening. Here’s another example today:
We are now living in a post-constitutional era where the full weight of the federal law enforcement apparatus (FBI and DOJ) has been weaponized for political purposes. The United States Government is now, essentially, a Nicaragua model.
The DOJ Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz, has released the investigative report of Asst. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that led to his firing. (full pdf below)
Inspector General Michael Horowitz referred McCabe’s false OIG testimony, made under oath, to the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). [Full Backstory]
After a review of the IG investigation, and after discussion with Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (and counsel), the OPR recommended to the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, that Andrew McCabe be terminated from employment.
A picture was initially clear in March once we had the full timeline of the interviews with Andrew McCabe that led to his firing. This Fox News report only confirms the obvious; however, it’s important to review the events to fully understand the scope of McCabe’s lying and also understand the reason for Lisa Page to be so angry.
Remember, Lisa Page was a DOJ attorney assigned to the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe specifically to provide legal guidance. Imagine how pissed off she was when she discovered (July 2017) the Deputy FBI Director who told her to leak a story -on his behalf- to the Wall Street Journal, denied ever telling her to leak the story.
It’s no wonder why Ms. Page told FBI Agent Peter Strzok to “never text her again”, and she quit working for the Mueller team several weeks before IG Horowitz informed Mueller about the conspiracy issues (which led to Strzok’s removal).
Here’s the timeline from an assembly of media reporting and investigative releases to congress.
Andrew McCabe was first interviewed about the media leaks in May 2017. He denied. “A couple of months later” he was interviewed by Inspector General Horowitz, and he again denied. On July 20th of 2017 Inspector General Horowitz gained the Peter Strzok and Lisa Page text messages.
•May 2017 McCabe denies leaking for WSJ story to FBI investigators (link).
•July 2017 McCabe denies again; to Inspector General Horowitz.
•July 2017 Lisa Page admits to Horowitz she was told to construct the Wall Street Journal story (Devlin Barrett, journalist). This conflicts with McCabes repeated denials. (link)
•July 20th 2017 Horowitz gets Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages (link). Proving McCabe constructed the WSJ story.
•August 2017: After Horowitz gets the proof McCabe was lying – McCabe follows up on the two denials saying “he may have allowed FBI officials to speak with the newspaper”. (link)
•August 2017: FBI re-interviews McCabe based on new admissions.
•November 29th 2017: One day before SC Mueller indicts Michael Flynn, IG Horowitz interviews McCabe again. Apparently this time McCabe admitted to constructing the leak. (link)
In May, June and July 2017, while FBI Deputy Director Andrew “Andy” McCabe was lying to FBI investigators and the Inspector General, Lisa Page was working for McCabe as his legal counsel.
Therein lies the heart and origin of the motive for Lisa Page to flip against the conspiracy group when she discovered Andrew McCabe lying to investigators about his instructions to her. IG Horowitz then interviews Page in July and she tells the truth, thereby contradicting McCabe. However, Ms. Page had evidence to back-up her version of the events, the text messages she delivered July 20th, 2017.
WHITE HOUSE – Today, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Grant of Clemency (Full Pardon) to I. Scooter Lewis Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Richard Cheney, for convictions stemming from a 2007 trial. President George W. Bush commuted Mr. Libbys sentence shortly after his conviction. Mr. Libby, nevertheless, paid a $250,000 fine, performed 400 hours of community service, and served two years of probation.
In 2015, one of the key witnesses against Mr. Libby recanted her testimony, stating publicly that she believes the prosecutor withheld relevant information from her during interviews that would have altered significantly what she said. The next year, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals unanimously reinstated Mr. Libby to the bar, reauthorizing him to practice law. The Court agreed with the District of Columbia Disciplinary Counsel, who stated that Mr. Libby had presented credible evidence in support of his innocence, including evidence that a key prosecution witness had changed her recollection of the events in question.
Before his conviction, Mr. Libby had rendered more than a decade of honorable service to the Nation as a public servant at the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the White House. His record since his conviction is similarly unblemished, and he continues to be held in high regard by his colleagues and peers.
In light of these facts, the President believes Mr. Libby is fully worthy of this pardon. I dont know Mr. Libby, said President Trump, but for years I have heard that he has been treated unfairly. Hopefully, this full pardon will help rectify a very sad portion of his life. (LINK)
Added by Centinel2012
This was long over due I’m very pleased that Trump did this!
Martin Selmayr, nicknamed “the Monster” by colleagues because of his fearsome reputation, has become the new European Commission Director General – the man in charge of the European Commission. He has been one of Brussels’ most controversial EU officials and he was unexpectedly put in charge of the entire EU civil service. Selmayr, who was chief of cabinet to president Jean-Claude Juncker since 2014, replaces Alexander Italianer, who had announced he would be stepping down after three years in the job. But the rumors behind the curtain tell a different story. With the Hungary election, Italian election, BREXIT, and Catalonia, the handwriting is on the wall. The EU is crumbling from its undemocratic internal authoritarian power that refuses to yield concerning its European Project to federalize Europe. If the Euro goes, there goes Brussels. They refuse to even concede that they created a nightmare with the Refugee Crisis. Italianer left because he disagreed with the internal policies. Selmayr is known as the “Monster” and this is a desperate turn to force central power upon the whole of Europe
Mario Draghi is by no means going to stop his Quantitative Easing program. All my sources behind the curtain express fear what will happen when Draghi leaves. Who will buy the government debt and who will keep subsidizing the governments of the Eurozone? Draghi has not merely declined to end Quantitative Easing, he has pledged to continue to reinvest in debt which it matures because he knows there will be no bidders. The ECB is exceeding 40% of all Eurozone debt on its balance sheet. There will be no bid for Eurozone debt and even the German bunds are reflecting weakness.
Draghi has publicly even distanced the ECB from the monetary policy considerations of Austria’s central bank chief Ewald Nowotny, a board member. Nowotny told Reuters interview on that future of bond purchases would decline and possible interest rate moves to the upside were coming. The ECB came out and publicly stated that the views of Governor Nowotny did not represent the view of the Governing Council. This is confirming our sources which have been stating that Draghi realizes he is trapped and he is trying to hold it together until he leaves so he will not be blamed for the mess he has created in the world economy after he leaves in 2019. I hate to tell him, but I do not think he will win that race out the door before chaos hits.
What is very clear is that the philosophy adopted by the US military post-World War II seriously threatens world peace and it diminishes the dignity of the United States. In the Cycle of War report, I provided the evidence that every single war we have engaged in has been a lie not just the invasion of Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction when it was all about oil and making money for Dick Cheney’s friends. Sadly, George Bush Jr will go down in history for being the aggressor when it would be a miracle if he even knew where Iraq was, to begin with. Then there was the fake news that Vietnam attacked the USA. Even Lyndon Johnson lied to the nation on TV and privately said the Americans were probably shooting at whales that night not a Vietnamese attack.
Even the sinking of the Lusitania was a deliberate act by the USA to justify getting involved in the war because Americans were isolationists. The Germans even took out an advertisement warning that the Lusitania would be sunk because it was using passengers as cover to move weapons to Britain. Our military sacrificed its own citizens to justify war.
Then there was Operation Northwoodswhere the documents have come out showing that the CIA wanted to kill Americans and blame it on Cuba to start a war. Every single war has been started with fake news all so some in the Military get to play with their toys no matter how many boys die for their games.
The critical problem we face is truly monumental. It is a vast problem that has consumed foreign policy discussions for decades. The underlying Syria issue brings to the surface the core problem. Besides the fact that it was the US invasion of Iraq that has unleashed the war in Syria since Sadam prevented the religious fanatics to ever gain a foothold. There was no civil war in Syria before removing Sadam. Mercenaries have come from all over to fight in Syria. It is not even purely a civil war.
The issue at hand is a very serious set of questions. (1) What is America’s role in the world? (2) What are America’s obligations to the world? (3) What happens if America ignores these beliefs of its role to police the world? These questions encapsulate the threat of World War III so the military gets to play with their toys one more time. They presume the USA has a divine right to police the entire world when its people were always isolationists who fled here to get away from the chaos of Europe. True, as that first generation died out, the subsequent generations forgot why their ancestors fled Europe, to begin with. Far too many just assume the USA is the policeman of the world and never question that assumption.
The military establishment looks in the mirror and sees only that they wear a white hat. They have destroyed the American dream and do not even know it.They have sacrificed the American standard of living to fund their wars. True, they defended the people against Hitler. But have they merely replaced Hitler from a power grabbing viewpoint perceiving themselves as rulers of an empire! There is no threat of an invasion by Russia or China. War has changed. The idea of conquest and occupation have faded into memory. If Russia were to take France, the French would look to them to pay their pensions. The world has changed very much.
The US military argues that America is the champion of democracy and human rights which justify its unique role in the world, or so they keep saying. They see themselves as the world’s policeman which justifies using force at will because everyone else is inherently a potential criminal. Who gave them these special powers and obligations to rule the world? Have the American people ever sanctioned such a military role over the world or agreed to reduce their standard of living to defend the entire world?
During the 1960s Presidential Debate, John F. Kennedy caused the first postwar Gold Panic. He publicly stated the truth. The Bretton Woods Monetary System was collapsing not because of a trade deficit – it was the military establishment opening bases around the world and the dollars that poured out to build these facilities and maintain them. America was squandering its wealth on the whims of the military. It was not consumers living high on foreign goods. As the Democrats raised taxes to insane levels of 94% for World War II in 1945 and back to 91% for the Korean War, with each tax hike to fund the military, more and more companies began to leave sending manufacture overseas. The military sucked the lifeblood of the nation from its veins and now interest expenditures alone for all this accumulated war debt will exceed military spending by 2019.
This very idea that America has a divine role to police the world has always been controversial. This is a highly dangerous notion for these people who always desire war see themselves as better than everyone else and that justifies the lies and manipulation of the truth to accomplish their objectives. This delusional view of American power grew with victories in both world wars. They see themselves as the savior of the world and that role must continue even when there are no aggressors threatening our future directly with invasion.
So how does a chemical weapon attack inside Syria justify US involvement? It does not. The definition of an aggressor is a use of force against another sovereign nation. Not an internal civil war. There is no absolute proof that the Syrian government even used chemical weapons. The mercenaries know the game. Like Operation Northwoods, if they kill their own people and blame Syria, then the USA will rush in and support the Islamic terrorists. We are played for fools as always.
The US military views any crisis in the world as America’s responsibility to end. They argue that the failure to do so would mean giving up some of its moral power, and that will result in America appearing weaker. But EVERY nation has a right to defend itself from civil war. Spain has abused the people of Catalonia yet Brussels and the USA remain silent. Since there are mercenaries who are not even Syrian fighting in this war, it is highly debatable if it is truly a civil war or an Islamic faction invasion of a religious war. Clearly, there is another goal here and it is really just a proxy war with Russia. It is all about a pipeline that would compete with Russia in selling gas to Europe. That is the bottom line.
Both Napoleon, Hitler, as well as Japan, all lost in war because they waged conflicts on too many fronts. When you piss off the world, you end up with too many enemies and the old saying that two enemies will unite whenever they have a common enemy. The lesson of the fall of the Athenian Empire is a blueprint of what is to come. There were internal battles politically between the oligarchy and Democracy the same as we have today between the Democrats (Oligarchy) and the Republicans (Democrats of old). They too brought charges against the leader of the Athenian Democrats, Perikles, showing that Athens was divided for their empire was too big and tempting for corruption. This is why Mueller is desperate to take down Trump. The pattern from history is uncanny.
Delian League was found in 478BC to unite against another possible Persian invasion led by Athens. But Persia, like Russia today, became too weak to ever invade and by 431 BC, Athens’ heavy-handed control of the Delian League and demand for taxes to support a military that would not be used prompted the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. The League was dissolved winning its freedom upon the war’s conclusion in 404 BC under the direction of Lysander, the Spartan commander. The rise and fall of the Athenian Empire followed the same Pi frequency – 8.6-years.
It is a HUGE mistake to allow the military to dominate government and instigate this war over chemical weapons being used internally within Syria for it is just a proxy war with Russia. By the UN’s definition, it is the USA who is the aggressor, not Syria, Russia, or China. The USA has few friends and to engage in war will only lead to the same conclusion that Athens suffered. The United States cannot defeat everyone if they too ban together – your enemy is my enemy. Many outside the USA will see this a freedom from American aggression. Banning together will leave the USA in shambles and defeated. History stands as a blueprint upon which the future is determined.
Oh, heck yes. This is exactly what we have been talking about. In an interview with Neil Cavuto, Senator Rand Paul shares his opinion that President Trump should respond to the coordinated political attacks by FBI and DOJ operatives by declassifying the information underneath all their shenanigans.
Good advice. Without interfering with the IG Horowitz and parallel Proseuctor John Huber approach, President Trump should immediately begin declassifying the documents surrounding the FISA abuse scandal.
Start by declassifying the 99-page opinion of FISA Court Presiding Judge, Rosemary Collyer. Remove all the redactions and let us see who the FBI/DOJ officials were allowing to have access to the NSA database to conduct searches. Then declassify the full FISA Title-1 surveillance application used by the FBI and DOJ against U.S. person Carter Page.
If these releases of information create a need for prosecution of the people, entities and former officials behind the documents, then so be it. These documents are unrelated to the issues of the FBI conduct review of IG Horowitz, and extend outside the DOJ. WATCH:
An Eagle was soaring through the air. Suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt the dart pierce its breast. Slowly it fluttered down to earth. Its lifeblood pouring out. Looking at the Arrow with which it had been shot, the Eagle realized that the deadly shaft had been feathered with one of its own plumes.
Moral: We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction.
The United States economy is the Eagle; the shaft is Wall Street; the feather is the U.S. middle-class, and the archer is U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue.
Need proof? Please, don’t take my word for it, read:
Tom Donohue: Tonight feels like a gathering of old friends. Five years ago, I had the pleasure of being in this beautiful city to help start a hemispheric business dialogue, and I’m pleased to be back in Lima for this year’s CEO Summit of the Americas.
[…] I also want to talk a little about the priorities within our government. Because, as everyone knows, many of the policy decisions coming out of Washington today not only impact the U.S. economy and its businesses and workers, but indeed those across this hemisphere and around the world.
[…] The Chamber has helped lead the fight to protect the status of more than one million people who are at risk of deportation. It makes no sense to send one million talented workers back to their home countries when we don’t have enough labor to get the job done in our own. This includes the young men and women who were brought to our country as children through no fault of their own—known as “the Dreamers”—as well as hundreds of thousands of individuals who are working in the U.S. under temporary protected status.
Moreover, as the debate has unfolded in Congress, we have been fighting back against proposals that would further reduce legal immigration.
♦You get that? I cannot tell you the number of people who have argued with me, and CTH, about Tom Donohue supporting amnesty and open borders. Many of the voices who oppose truth are deep within CONservative media. I digress.
Donohue continues on the topic of trade:
[…] NAFTA “As many of you know, there several problematic U.S. proposals that have stalled progress toward a deal.”
[…] [The Trump administration sunset clause proposal] calls for an automatic termination date after five years unless the three parties agree to continue it. I don’t need to tell any of you as investors that this is untenable to anyone who intends to achieve return on his investment; the conversation should start at 20 years in order to provide the certainty in ROI that we all require.
•You get that? “Problematic U.S. proposals”… WTF? Wall Street, via The U.S-CoC is demanding no review of any new NAFTA deal for any period less than 20 years? Twenty.Fucking.Years. [Twenty years ago cell phones were shoe boxes.]
[…] Next, the U.S. has put forward a proposal introducing severe restrictions on Mexican and Canadian access to U.S. government procurement. While touted as a way to supposedly promote improved reciprocity, the U.S. proposals are likely to have the opposite impact.
U.S. companies have far more at stake in North American government procurement than our Canadian and Mexican partners. Hundreds of American firms in financial services, IT, education and beyond have literally billions of dollars in government contracts in Canada in Mexico.
•You get that? Wall Street, via the U.S-Coc, wants Mexican and Canadian companies to benefit from U.S. taxpayer expenditures on government contracts (ie. infrastructure spending etc.) Why? Because Wall Street has investment in Mexican and Canadian companies, that’s why.
[…] Finally, the U.S. has advanced a proposal on rules of origin for auto production that mandates increases in North American content.
I touch on this area last because it’s the controversial proposal that’s shown the most promise for a potential breakthrough. Negotiators are creatively looking at ways to introduce areas like vehicle design and research and developmentinto the content equation in a way that potentially limits disruption to production.
And there’s the key. Whatever solution they come to cannot disrupt the fully integrated North American supply chains that have made our continent’s auto sector the most competitive in the world.
•Your get that? Wall Street, via the U.S-CoC want to keep the flow of cheap Chinese and Asian parts into their investments in Mexican auto-plants. In an effort to hoodwink the details, Wall Street, via the U.S-CoC want to add the cost/value of designing a car into the content as if “design and research” was an actual physical component. See the scheme?
[…] As we heard at the recent meeting of AACCLA leaders in Miami that many of you attended, our regional partners view NAFTA as a bellwether for the fate of other agreements. Let’s not forget that all U.S. FTAs are slated to be reviewed, presumably once NAFTA 2.0 is complete. And twelve of our 20 FTA partners are in the Americas. Nearly half of all U.S. goods exports are bound for this region. … The U.S. Chamber will keep fighting for that outcome, here and in Washington, and for as long as it takes.” (continue reading)
Oh there’s more, much more, but you get the picture. There are trillions of dollars at stake and the U.S. CoC is committed to exploiting every single penny. President Donald Trump is an existential threat to these endeavors.
As you are probably aware President Trump cancelled his visit to the Summit of the Americas in Lima, Peru this week; preferring to send Vice President Mike Pence in his stead. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahue is in Peru and delivered the Wall Street positions on trade to the gathering. (More on that later).
It is critical to remember, at the epicenter of all political position is money. All support and opposition to POTUS Trump surrounds the money. Under the foundation of ideology are financial benefits and/or lack thereof. [Ex. Chuck Grassley’s presentation of a bill to support SC Robert Mueller is directly tied to his purchased Big AG lobby position on trade via UniLever, ConAgra, Monsanto, ADM etc.] The Wall Street coalition needs leverage against POTUS Trump to defend their financial positions. There are trillions at stake.
Directly related, today in the White House, President Trump -together with U.S.T.R Robert Lighthizer- met with an assembly of governors and congressional representatives to discuss trade and agriculture. Each of these state and federal officials is part of the Big AG corporate purchase of policy.
.
When POTUS keeps the cameras rolling, it’s beneficial to pay attention. Notice how President Trump is leveraging an agricultural benefit of ethanol against the financial influence of Big AG lobbyists who control the assembled politicians.
It’s a modern fact, albeit sickening in the big picture, that President Trump has to fight for the best outcome of America’s economic policy against special interests of U.S. politicians – who are purchased by lobbyist money to act against America’s best interests.
[Transcript] 11:07 A.M. EDT – THE PRESIDENT: So this is a group I like very much. We’re here to discuss agriculture — very important. And these are great people, great Americans, great patriots. And they’ve been treated very badly for a long time. And if you look at the farmer, it’s been, unfortunately, over a 12-year period, trending downward. Very much trending downward. So we’re changing things with respect to trade and trade with other countries.
A lot of times, the farmers sort of — they know what they have. But it’ll be very good when we get it all finished. It’ll be great. People are a little bit concerned going into that wild blue yonder, or, in our case, the wild red yonder. (Laughter.) But I will say that the farmers are going to be — they’re going to do fantastically well.
But they have been trending downward for a long period of time, and we’re not going to have that. A lot of it is because of bad trade deals.
So I’m pleased to be joined by several of our nation’s governors — very distinguished governors — and members of Congress to talk about trade and agriculture.
As you know, the recent investigation led by U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer — who’s with us today also — identified a pattern of chronic Chinese trading abuses, including theft of intellectual property and trade secrets, and forced technology transfers, which has cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars, and also, the targeting of American technology. It’s cost us untold hundreds of billions of dollars over the years.
Larry Kudlow is here and he’s shaking his head, approvingly — meaning, of what I’m saying.
KUDLOW: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: But disapprovingly of what they’ve done.
KUDLOW: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: As you are all aware, China has consistently treated the United States agriculture unfairly. I was very proud of something I did at Mar-a-Lago, in Florida. I had President Xi, who’s a friend of mine, who’s a very, very good man. And I don’t blame China; I blame our representatives that — our people over the past, our Presidents and negotiators and trade representatives — that they allowed this to happen.
But during a very brief conversation, I said, “President, the United States, we want to sell beef again to China.” Now, they hadn’t sold it in, what, 14 years or something. And he looked at me and he said, “Say it again.” I said, “We want to sell beef” — that’s a big industry — “in China.” And he said, “We will sell beef in China.” And we did other things too. But the one that really is the most interesting for the people at this table is beef.
And I think, Governor, that made a big impact, and they’re selling a lot of beef in China that hadn’t been — for 14, 15 years, they were not allowed to sell beef in China.
So we have the kind of a relationship that, I think, is going to be very aggressively sustained. Yesterday, as you know, President Xi made a very good speech, and he said he’s going to open up China. He’s going to open it up, take down a lot of the trade barriers — maybe all of them — but take down a lot of trade barriers.
And he’s going to get rid of a lot of the taxes or tariffs that they charge. Because, right now, if you have — and I use this example because it’s so easy — if we sell a car into China, number one, they won’t take the car; and number two, if they did take the car, it’s 25 percent tariff. Whereas we have no barrier, and when they sell a car into us, it’s 2.5 percent. So they have barriers, but when they don’t have barriers, it’s 25 percent versus 2.5 percent. That’s not a good way to make money. Chuck will tell you that. So we’re straightening that out.
We want to be reciprocal. So if they charge 25, we charge 25. If they charge 2.5, we charge 2.5. And maybe what happens is we both charge nothing, because I know we’d all like that. I think Ben would like that better than anybody, okay? That’s simpler than 25. Let’s save all the transfer of funds, right?
SENATOR SASSE: We need more trade.
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s what we want. We want more trade. We want no barriers. But the only way you can knock it down, you can’t just go in — for 25 years, Presidents have been trying to negotiate and they’ve been very unsuccessful, because they’d meet and they’d say, “Can we talk?” And the Chinese would say, “Yes, we can.” And that’s what they do — they talk for four years, then they’ll talk for another four years, and that would be the end of that. Nothing would happen. So nothing would happen. So we’re doing a job there.
NAFTA — we’re renegotiating NAFTA. It’s coming along great. I have no time. You know, I keep reading from the “fake news” media that we’re pushing it. I’m not pushing it; I don’t care. Oh, you’re laughing. That’s good, Chuck. See, Fox can smile because — (laughter) — you know, you do a very beautiful job.
But I keep hearing how we’re pushing NAFTA, we want it done. There’s no timeline. There’s no timeline. Now, in the meantime, nobody is moving into Mexico. Because as long as NAFTA is in flux, no company is going to spend a billion dollars to build an automobile plant.
So I say this — I’ve told it to the Mexicans: We can negotiate forever. Because as long as we have this negotiation going, nobody is going to build billion-dollar plants in Mexico, which is what they’ve been doing a lot. They have taken our auto industry by the throat. And so many jobs have been lost, so many massive plants have been built in Mexico. Top-of-the-line stuff. But it’s not happening now, and they’re coming back. Chrysler has moved back; a lot of them have moved back.
And the same thing with agriculture, which is going to be our predominant discussion today. So agriculture is okay with NAFTA. Not great. We’re going to make it great. We’re going to make it great. And we’re getting pretty close to a deal. It could be three or four weeks. It could be two months; it could be five months. I don’t care. In fact, if everybody in this room closed their ears, I’d say I’d rather terminate NAFTA and make a brand new deal, but I’m not going to do that because I want everyone to be happy in this room, okay? We’ll see how it goes.
But we’re going to make a fair NAFTA deal, much better than it is right now. NAFTA has cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars. It has been a disaster. We’ve lost 50,000 factories, millions of jobs. NAFTA has been a disaster.
So we’re going to either come up with a great NAFTA deal, and a fair one for this country, or we’re going to just do something else. And agriculture will be taken care of 100 percent.
So we’re going to have a discussion today and we’re going to talk about agriculture as it relates to trade, primarily. Again, we’re doing really well with China. I think we’re having some great discussions, and we’ll see what happens. We put a $50 billion tariff on, and then we put $100 billion tariff on. And, you know, at a certain point, they run out of bullets.
Remember what I said: When you’re $500 billion down, you can’t lose a trade war. And I won’t call it a trade war because it’s really a trade negotiation. But nobody ever negotiated from our side. Nobody ever did anything. All they did was talk. And in the meantime, we helped rebuild China because they took so much money — bridges, and airports, and military, and everything. They took so much — hundreds of billions of dollars out of our country.
So now we’re really negotiating, and I think they’re going to treat us very fairly. I think they want to. And again, I don’t blame my friend, President Xi. I blame our representatives, for years, that didn’t do a damn thing, and they allowed it to happen. I wish we could do what they did because that would make everybody at this table very happy. So perhaps we’re in the process of doing it.
The other thing is, if you look at the European Union — we’re talking to them — I don’t know if you realize it, but they have virtual barriers against even agriculture, from going in. So they sell us their Mercedes-Benzes, and they sell us their BMWs, and they sell all the different things. And we have no barriers whatsoever.
Hello, Pete. Good job you’re doing. Nebraska, folks. Doing a good job. He never liked me until we met. (Laughter.) Right? He was a Never Trumper. And his family.
GOVERNOR RICKETTS: No, that was my brother, Todd. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No, the whole family. (Laughter.) And then I flew to Nebraska — a state I love — I made a speech, and he liked me. And from then on, he called his brother — he said, “Trump is good. Let’s be friends.” Then we became —
GOVERNOR RICKETTS: Well, remember in that speech, Mr. President, you vowed to open up the Chinese market to our U.S. beef. And you delivered on that promise.
THE PRESIDENT: And that’s what we’re doing, right? Did I deliver? I did that quickly.
GOVERNOR RICKETTS: Yeah.
THE PRESIDENT: In one conversation. So — good to see you, Pete.
So we are opening up the European Union or we’re not going to be very nice about it. At the European Union, we’ll lose about $151 billion this year. We lose with almost everybody. We lose with Canada. We lose with Mexico. We lose with the European Union. We lose with — certainly, we lose with China, Vietnam. I mean, no matter where you go, it’s very rare — very rare that our country has a surplus.
But we’re changing it. And, as Ben said, we want to have trade. And we want to have barriers taken down because the barriers, in many cases, are far worse than the tariffs. I mean, the tariffs can be bad, but the barriers are very bad.
So the European Union makes it very hard for agricultural products because their farmers don’t want you there. The farmers say, “We don’t want the American farmers.” But that’s not fair because we take all of their stuff. A lot of cars and lot of other things. So they’re going to have to take down the barriers because we can’t have it.
You know, when you think of European Union, you think so friendly, so nice. They’re very brutal to us in terms of trade. So we’re talking about that, too.
In the end, the farmers are going to be, I think, the biggest beneficiary from all of what’s happening. They are great people. We love our farmers. They were so good to me during the election, that whole — much more than center of the country. It’s a big group of people, Joni. Right?
But Sonny Perdue came, and he said, “Look at this.” And he hung up a map, and the whole thing is red. And those are those farmers, and we love those farmers. Right? We’re going to take care of the farmers. They haven’t been taken care of.
I mean, you just take a look at European Union. They virtually can’t do business. Take a look at China. Take a look at so many other places.
So we are going to finish off these trade deals. I’m going to ask Sonny, Secretary of Agriculture, to say a couple of words. I might ask Bob Lighthizer to say a couple of words, and maybe Larry Kudlow. And then we will get on with our meeting, and we’ll ask the media to head out of the room.
Sonny.
SECRETARY PERDUE: Mr. President, the people in this room, both in Congress and governors, represent some of the best people in America, and that is those people that you’ve used a word that I like to use about them. They’re “patriots” first. They’re Americans first.
THE PRESIDENT: Patriots.
♦SECRETARY PERDUE: They bring the hardworking ethics of the American spirit from their fields and farms and ranches across this country. And they support you. And they understand what you’re trying to do in calling the question — having the courage to call the question against people who have been cheating, both China and EU. The barriers that you describe actually punish American farmers more than a lot of other industries because the American farmer and rancher has been so productive. So they’re with you in that effort.
Obviously, from their livelihood perspective, we can understand their anxieties. And that’s what these people hear about on an ongoing basis. But I’ve been out last week on the road, assuring them what you told me, is that you are going to take care of the American farmer. You don’t expect them to be the only soldiers in this battle.
And, first of all, I think your point of what President Xi said over the weekend — I don’t think we’re in a battle yet. I think we have set the stage for a balanced negotiation that can happen. And that’s what all of us are hoping and praying for, that we get a good, sound, fair, balanced negotiation with all of these countries. And we applaud your leadership and courage in calling that question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s why I really called the farmers “patriots” — because they know what I’m doing. They had a group of 10 in one of the shows over the weekend, and they were farmers. “And do you agree what the President is doing with China?” And they all agreed. They all said, “Look, we may have to take a little bit of a hit.” I don’t even think they will. But in the end, the country is going to be much stronger; our country is going to be much stronger.
But more importantly, they’re going to be — everything is going to be better. Just everything is going to be better. And one of them said, “You know, most importantly, the country is going to be much stronger, but we’re going to make much more money.” They’re going to be doing much better.
And, you know, as an example, I’m working with Chuck Grassley, and with Joni, and with Deb, and — all of us, right? We’re all working together. And we’re working on the ethanol, and it’s really working out. I think it’s going to really work out. People have been talking about this for years. And we think we’re going to do something, I will say, early — and now this is no guarantee — but we’re going to raise it up to 15 percent, which makes a lot of people happy.
We’re going to go to 12 months, which makes a lot of farmers very happy — because we go from 8 months to 12 months, that’s a big difference. That was always unnecessary and ridiculous.
So we’re going to work out something during the transition period, which is not easy, very complicated, because we have to take care of our refineries. We have to take care of a lot of other people. But we’re working on transition now because there will be a two-year period of time that we have a little bit of complexity while things are happening, while things are being built.
But we’re going to be going probably — probably — to 15 [percent], and we’re going to be going to a 12-month period. So I think that’s going to be —
GOVERNOR RICKETTS : It’s a great deal.
THE PRESIDENT: Look at that big smile. All of a sudden, there’s a lot of smiles. (Laughter.)
SENATOR FISCHER: That’s good.
THE PRESIDENT: And you know what? It’s going to solve a problem. And we’re going to be helping also — we’re going to be also helping the refineries. So the refineries are going to be able to do much better, because right now there are a lot of them that are not doing well. So we have to help the refineries. So we’re very close to getting that done and we’ve worked hard on that, Joni.
SENATOR ERNST: We really have. We have.
THE PRESIDENT: But it’s coming along very nicely.
Could I ask Bob Lighthizer to say a few words, please?
♦AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: Sure, Mr. President. I would say, first of all, we’ll get into details about things in the private session, as you asked. Just preliminary — one, I talk to a lot of people around this room a lot. Everybody — I hope you all realize that I’m available to talk. I know this is in-time information, and consulting is important.
And I haven’t talked to all of you, but most of you I talk to a fair amount. So I want you to know that I welcome to do it. I’m happy to do it.
THE PRESIDENT: He’s working about 23 hours a day, and he sleeps for one. Look at him. I mean, is this guy — (laughter) he’s like exhausted.
SENATOR THUNE: It shows.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s all right. That’s okay. You’re looking good. Go ahead.
♦AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: I don’t look that bad, all right? (Laughter.)
So the second thing is, we tend to think a lot about agriculture as always on the defensive in all of these things. The fact is you can’t really find a serious market where we couldn’t do better in agriculture.
China, of course, we talked about the sales there, but they’re a fraction of what they should be — literally, a fraction. So we’re very much on the aggressive side as far as that goes.
Moving down quickly, of course, we’ve made enormous progress. People are aware of that. I feel — I agree with the President on everything, including we’re in no hurry on NAFTA. Having said that, we’re making progress on NAFTA.
Some of the people don’t focus on — we have 18 cases at the WTO where we are pursuing the interest of agriculture very — within the trading system, which is a very big part of what we do.
THE PRESIDENT: And we’re starting to get much better results at the World Trade Organization, WTO, because they know we’re not playing games anymore. You know, we’re going to get the results or they’re not going to be so happy. I mean, it was set up to hurt us.
I mean, if you look at it, 25 years ago, or whatever it was, it was really set up to take advantage of the United States, as far as I’m concerned. But we’re starting to get much better results, and that would make, I think, a lot of people very happy.
Go ahead.
♦AMBASSADOR LIGHTHIZER: I’ll just say, the final thing I had — and we’ll about this privately — but the China situation is a serious problem. Everybody realizes something has to be done about it. I’ll show you the numbers. They’re off the charts. It’s a real threat to our economy.
The President has a plan that you can draw, literally, back from June of 2016, where we talked specifically about what we would do. He ran on this issue. He has a mandate, and I’ll show you every moderate, reasonable, well-studied step we’ve taken — I’ll do this in private, of course — and you can see how we got here in a very moderate, reasonable way.
But it’s just not an issue that can be further kicked down the road. We expect to continue to do it that way, and you get a good result, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Thank you very much, Bob. And you really are doing a great job. I appreciate it. But we want to see the end result — because it doesn’t matter what happens during the course, it’s the end result that counts.
I just — while we’re talking about China, we are getting along very well. I think we’re going to do some great things. But very importantly, they’re very much helping us at the border of North Korea and they’re continuing to. And, you know, they view it as something they should do. I think it’s certainly very beneficial to them. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is very good for them. Good for everybody.
But they have really been a great help to us at the border of North Korea, and maybe that all plays into what we’re doing because I think it does. I think everything does. But perhaps that’s one of the reasons that they are so helpful. They’ve been really terrific in helping us get to some kind of a settlement.
Meetings are being set up right now between myself and Kim Jong-un, who will be — I think it will be terrific. I think we’re going with a lot of respect, and we’ll see what happens. So we’ve come a long way. But China has really helped us at the border, and we appreciate it. Okay?
Larry Kudlow.
♦KUDLOW: Yes, sir. Thank you. Let me just add on. Trump economic policies have designed and succeeding now in promoting economic growth in the U.S. We’re already running over 3 percent growth from the last three quarters. People said we couldn’t, but we are. There may be a sloppy quarter in there someplace, but the trend is unmistakable.
I will say — you know me, I’m a growth guy — better economic growth helps everyone. Everyone. I don’t care what industry what sector, what state, what region. Growth helps everyone. The 155 million Americans are benefitting from growth. New businesses, existing businesses; new investments, existing investments. Getting rid of the tax burdens and the regulatory burdens help, and it’s paramount.
In connection with the President’s trade initiatives, these are designed to promote growth. If you lose sight of that, as we get into the various details, I urge you not to think of the worst case in every situation. I just urge you to do that. We’ve got one of the greatest negotiators on the planet. He’s laid out a menu of options. Everything is on the table. If he has to do it, he’ll do it.
But there’s also a positive side. As the President said, we’ve had good signals from China for change just in the past few days. The President signaled back. Great discussions are going on. The China initiatives, with respect to technology and barriers and autos and farming, this is all designed at the end of the process — I call it the end of the rainbow — to promote growth. There’s a pot of gold there. And if you open that pot, there will be better growth and more prosperity for every part of this country and every working person in this country. That’s the design, is not to punish; it’s to grow. We never talked about punishment.
And I spoke to a lot of House members and Republican (inaudible) just earlier this morning, and I said this, and I hope I don’t violate anything, sir: Stay with us while we go through this difficult process. Stay with us. And at the end, if the worst case has come out as the President said, you will be helped. That’s a promise. I echo that promise. But stay with us now. The next few months could be very, very important. And if we succeed — and I do believe he’s going to succeed — growth is the dividend of prosperity, and we haven’t seen it in over 20 years.
So this trade initiative, as part of our growth policies, folds very nicely into lower tax rates and lower regulations. And President Trump has ended the war on business, and that’s part of this. We grow at 4 percent — who knows. This is good stuff, even though it’s difficult in the process, it’s all aimed at growth. That’s a Kudlow message. I’ve been saying it for many decades. I’m still saying it. And these are the best growth policies I’ve seen since I was a kid working for Reagan.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Larry, very much. Beautifully said.
Just to finish, we have some tremendous numbers coming out from companies. We have hundreds of billions of dollars pouring back into our country from our tax cut plan where money overseas is coming in, which, Larry, you often mention and talk about. Apple, as an example, is investing $350 billion in plants — which they don’t have too many of, but they will — and campuses and everything else.
Other companies are investing billions of dollars back in our country. So they’re bringing in billions of dollars, I would say ahead of schedule, even far ahead of schedule. And that’s going to create growth and jobs and everything else.
As you know, we had 32 solar plants, and of the 32, I think 30 were closed, Larry, right? There were — it’s a new industry, but they were getting absolutely killed by China and some others. And we put a tariff on those panels coming in, which were not nearly as good as the ones we make. And now we have two that are open. Can you imagine, of the 32, there were two that are — were just about limping along and barely open.
These two are now doing very well and they’re looking to open seven, eight, nine of the plants. Same thing with washing machines. They were dumping — if you can believe this — washing machines all over the country. Just dumping them. And we put a 30 percent tariff on, and now washing machine plants are expanding and opening in our country.
So I just want to use tariffs judiciously but it can certainly help. The steel and aluminum industry — 10 percent on aluminum. And you probably have seen, and I sort of thought this might happen, aluminum is down 4 percent since we put a 10 percent tariff on it. So someday, somebody is going to explain that to me. I didn’t think it would be that good; I thought maybe it would go up just a little bit.
Steel, we have taken the tariff off some countries when we’ve been able to renegotiate deals. For instance, in South Korea, when they heard they had to pay 25 percent tariff on steel coming in, they went absolutely crazy and we made a deal. The KORUS deal is now pretty much concluded. And we really made that, I would say, Bob, largely because of the fact that they did not like the fact that they were having to pay tariffs on steel.
So we’ve been able to — even the European Union, they’re not happy about the steel, and we’re negotiating with them. I don’t know that we would be negotiating without the steel. And I say, for them to hear, I couldn’t care less. They can hear it.
In some cases, people are paying tariffs and we’re taking in a lot of money for the country. Those tariffs are tremendous. We’re taking in a lot of money. Not so bad, either. But the tariffs have really helped us. When used properly, they really get people to the table. And that’s what we want. But I want people to the table, also, for our great American farmers for the ag industry. I love those people. We’re taking care of those people. And it’s working out really well.
So thank you all very much for being here. And thank you very much. Thank you.
◊Q Mr. President, is military action against Syria inevitable, sir? Is there any way to avoid it?
THE PRESIDENT: We’re having a meeting today on Syria. We’re having a number of meetings today. We’ll see what happens. We’re obviously looking at that very closely.
And I will be leaving here. I was there, and now I’ll be going back as soon as this meeting is over. But we’re looking very, very seriously, very closely at that whole situation. And we’ll see what happens, folks. We’ll see what happens.
It’s too bad that the world puts us in a position like that. But, you know, as I said this morning, we’ve done a great job with ISIS. We have just absolutely decimated ISIS. But now we have to make some further decisions, so they’ll be made fairly soon.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 