Sunday Talks: Adam Schiff Justifies Partisan Political Coup – Now Claims President Trump is an Asset of Saudi Arabia…


HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff appears on Face the Nation to justify his corrupt political efforts to construct a soft coup within the government.  Mr. Schiff begins the interview by saying President Trump is an asset of Saudi Arabia, and implying President Trump supported the Saudi terrorist attack in Pensacola, Florida.

Toward the end of the interview Schiff attempts to justify his publication of private phone records, which turned out to be inaccurate, by claiming his subpoena to CNN parent company AT&T [*nudge/nudge*-*wink/wink*] wasn’t technically looking for Devin Nunes phone records…. that he published, falsely, anyway.

Oh Snap – Senator Lindsey Graham Pledges to Block Testimony of U.S. Politicians Coordinating With Ukraine…


Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo and announces he will take all appropriate efforts to stop the truth about Ukraine from being exposed in the Senate.   This interview is a critical first step to understanding motives. CTH will expand in the next few posts that will highlight *WHY* Graham will bury information.

First, watch Senator Graham say unequivocally he will not call witnesses and will quickly move to dismiss the House impeachment effort.  Pay close attention to the part where Graham says calling congressmen to testify is dangerous, and he will not call Adam Schiff because he does not want to go down this path.

.

These comments by Senator Lindsey Graham are very self serving. Why?… Because Senator Graham participated in the exploitation of Ukraine for his own benefit. In essence Graham is fearful that too much inquiry into what took place with Ukraine in 2014 through 2016 will expose his own participation and effort along with former Ambassador Marie Yovanovich.

Graham is attempting to end the impeachment effort because the underlying discoveries have the potential to expose the network of congressional influence agents, John McCain and Graham himself included, during any witness testimony.

President Trump Hosts White House Small Business Roundtable – Video and Transcript…


Earlier today President Trump hosted a small business roundtable at the White House with various business owners to discuss the economy and the removal of regulatory hurdles. [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, everyone. King Salman of Saudi Arabia, he just called to express his sincere condolences and give his sympathies to the families and friends of the warriors who were killed and wounded in the attack that took place just recently, just this morning, in Pensacola, Florida.

The King said that the Saudi people are greatly angered by the barbaric actions of the shooter and that this person, in no way, shape, or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people so much.

So that was just given to me by the King of Saudi Arabia. And I can tell you, it’s a horrible thing that took place. And we’re getting to the bottom of it. All of the investigators are there now, and they’re studying it very closely. And a terrible thing. And our condolences go to the families and to everybody involved, including the wounded. We have some badly wounded people also. And we have to extend our condolences to them, and we’ll be working with them all very closely.

So I just wanted to let you know that was from King Salman.

And today, we’re here to talk to some of the very hardworking citizens who are benefitting from our historic record-setting campaign to eliminate job-killing regulations. I will tell you, the market is up 325 points today on great job numbers. The numbers have been phenomenal, actually. Some people said — so spot on, so good — that they’ve actually never seen anything like it. And it’s a long way from when people were rooting for a recession because they thought they could maybe win an election. But we don’t root for a recession; we root for success. And we’re having tremendous success.

I want to thank Vice President Mike Pence, who’s here, right here — Mike, thank you — as well as Secretary Gene Scalia, Secretary Elaine Chao, Acting OMB Director Russ Vought, and Acting Administrator Chris Pilkerton. Thank you all very much for being here. Appreciate it. Appreciate it very much.

It’s been an incredible period of time, economically, for our country. Probably the best ever. And we have the best unemployment numbers in over 54 years. We have the best numbers for African Americans. This came out today. Again, African American, Hispanic, Asian American — the best numbers we’ve ever had. Numbers for women are at a record number. We think that it will probably — if it keeps going like this — very shortly be totally historic. But they’re at numbers that nobody ever believed possible. Nobody would have believed it. Frankly, in the campaign, I would have never said it, but I felt we were going to do very well.

That’s despite the fact that we’re paying interest to people that have their money in the bank and other countries are not. So they have a great competitive advantage, and yet we’re, by far, far and away, the most successful economy anywhere in the world. We’re doing better than any other economy in the world. And, you know, we’ve created many trillions of dollars of wealth since the election. Other countries have lost many trillions of dollars.

We’re, by far, the largest economy in the world, and that was going to change. For many years, they were saying that was going to change, we were going to go to number two during this presidency. That was years ago. And I guess that — the wrong President got elected from the standpoint that there are a lot of people very unhappy about it. So they wish — they certainly think it was the wrong President; they would have rather had somebody else because they’re not number one. We’re number one. And we’re so far ahead that people can’t even believe it.

So we’ve had tremendous success. We’ve had it together. This has been a great group of Cabinet members. And the people in the administration have done a really good job.

It was just reported that we added another 266,000 jobs in November and we’ve also had very favorable numbers outside of the 266 [thousand], including some of the past numbers have been corrected in a very positive way also. So we have 266,000 jobs, plus we’ve created 7 million jobs, since my election. Unemployment is at the lowest rate, as I told you, in many years. And in many ways, I think we can probably, very soon, say “historically.”

A record 158 million Americans are now working. That’s the largest number in the history of our country. We’ve never had 158 million people working. And we should be breaking the 160 million magic mark fairly soon.

The stock market today, as you know, it’s up 325. We’ve hit another record high. I believe that’s 128 times — something like that — that we’ve broken the record, the all-time record for stock market highs. And think of that: about 128 times, and we’ve been here for less than three years. So it’s — and that, I can tell you, is a record.

2.5 million Americans have been lifted out of poverty. African American, Hispanic America, Asian American poverties — poverty levels, in the positive sense, have hit record lows. That’s something that nobody thought was going to be possible in a short period of time either. So they’ve all hit record lows.

Our regulatory reform efforts are delivering prosperity to forgotten men, women, and children of America. We are seeing a middle-class boom led by blue-collar jobs. And that’s one of the things that’s so great: The blue-collar workers — great workers of our country — they’re really benefitting tremendously from what we’ve done with the tax cuts and all of the other things that we’ve done.

And very big, I think, is the regulation cuts. Because even before we were able to get the tax cuts so successfully from Congress, we started cutting regulations immediately, and that had a big impact. And that’s why we went up so much between the election victory. So you’d say, really, from November 9th, the day after the election, up until January 20th, the Inauguration, the stock markets and jobs went — literally, went through the roof. And if the election were lost, it would have gone right through the floor. It would have been a disaster.

The soaring stock market is boosting pensions, 401(k)s, and college savings accounts at record levels. We’ve added $10 trillion in value to the economy, helping the small businesses that create two out of three new jobs. Nearly every single state has seen record numbers. Almost every state — I can tell you, every state I’ve been to in the last three months is having the best year they’ve ever had. And that’s because of the federal policy. And they’re very thankful. The governors are very thankful. The senators are very thankful. They’re all very thankful.

So things have happened that nobody thought would be possible. But, literally, every state I go to is setting a record for their state — individual states. And one of the states had just reported, and it’s because of our actions, not because of their actions, this I can tell you — because their actions are very negative. California is doing much better than anyone anticipated because of what we’ve done at the federal level. So, I’m very happy about that.

Next year, we will continue our bold deregulatory campaign. We’ll remove costly burdens to make cars safer and more affordable. I don’t know if you know what’s going on. We’re in a dispute with California. California, in order to save a tiny amount of fuel, of which we have plenty — and we have numbers that nobody would have believed possible. We’re the largest energy producer now in the world, and we’re an exporter of energy for the first in our history, really.

But we can make cars much less expensive, much better, much stronger, and about the same, from an environmental standpoint. Very close. But then, when you realize that many old cars will be taken off the road because they don’t want to get rid of them because they don’t want to buy the new cars because, frankly, they don’t work very well. That little — like this: You take that. (Points at a glass of water.) Sometimes, it’s about that much gasoline.

It’s a difference between $3,500, extra computers put on the engines, and all of the other things that you have to do. But the cars are much safer. Our cars are much safer. They’re much cheaper. They’re much better. And the reason they’re safer is because they can be heavier because, right now, the cars are made out of papier-mâché. (Laughter.) And ours are actually — we allow steel content. (Laughter.)

And so people are getting very excited about it. We have some good support with the auto companies. The only ones that don’t support are the car companies that want to be politically correct. But we’ll end up in some litigation with California. But just remember: Our cars are safer — and they are much safer, by the way — and they’re better. They operate better.

And, in every way, we think it’s going to be terrific. And we have a lot of support from the car industry. And you’re talking about a saving of $3,500 on average, per car. That’s a tremendous saving.

And one of the other things, from an environmental standpoint, many of the old gas guzzlers are — that are spewing out bad things are going to be coming off the road. Cars that are 10 years old and older, people will be going to the new cars because the pricing is better. And the net result of what happens environmentally is a very positive result because a lot of old cars are going to come off the road. And they won’t come off the road with the California standard, but they’ll come off the road with our standard. So you have a better car for less money, and it will be safer.

We’ll end the regulatory assault on franchise small businesses, which a lot of the people around the table want to do, because they’re very, very strongly affected. We’ll provide greater financial freedom and flexibility for U.S. truckers. The trucking industry has gotten — right, Elaine? — out of control. You might want to say a few words about that in a minute. But it’s gotten out of control.

And we’re doing other things. The lightbulb: They got rid of the lightbulb that people got used to. The new bulb is many times more expensive. And I hate to say it, it doesn’t make you look as good. Of course, being a vain person, that’s very important to me. (Laughter.) It’s like a — it gives you an orange look. I don’t want an orange look. (Laughter.) Has anyone noticed that? (Laughter.) So we’ll have to change those bulbs in at least a couple of rooms where I am in the White House. (Laughter.)

But we’re going back to the — it’s a double standard. We have a standard of the new bulbs, and we have the old bulbs. And they’re already making the old bulbs. Many people were complaining that the new bulbs were much, much more expensive. Many times, in some cases, more expensive. And the other thing, they’re considered a hazardous waste that, because it’s largely a gas technology, when the bulb is disposed of, you’re supposed to bring it to a hazardous waste site. I said, “How many people do that?” “No- — nobody does it.” And, you know, that’s a bad thing.

So you probably heard about it. You probably read about it. And you’ll be able to buy lightbulbs that actually are better lighting, in the opinion of many — and, I tell you, in my opinion — and for a lot less money. And so we’re doing that. But you’ll also be able — if you want, you can buy the other bulbs also. And I’ll tell you, even the bulb companies are very happy about that.

But together, we’re defending the American workers. We’re using common sense. We have a situation where we’re looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on — in areas where there’s tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it — and you don’t get any water. You turn on the faucet; you don’t get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. It’s dripping out — very quietly dripping out. People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water. So, EPA is looking at that very strongly, at my suggestion.

You go into a new building or a new house or a new home, and they have standards, “Oh, you don’t get water.” You can’t wash your hands, practically, there’s so little water comes out of the faucet. And the end result is you leave the faucet on and it takes you much longer to wash your hands. You end up using the same amount of water.

So we’re looking at, very seriously, at opening up the standard. And there may be some areas where we’ll go the other route — desert areas. But for the most part, you have many states where they have so much water that it comes down — it’s called rain — (laughter) — that they don’t know — they don’t know what to do with it.

So we’re going to be opening up that, I believe. And we’re looking at changing the standards very soon. And that’s a little bit like the lightbulb, where you get a bulb that’s better for much less money. We go back — but you have the other alternative. And you’ll keep the other alternative with sinks and showers, et cetera, too. But that’s been a big problem.

So a lot — a lot of the things we do are based on common sense. Somebody said, “Is that a conservative, is it a liberal thing? Is it — what is it? What are we doing?” I said, “It’s a commonsense thing.” In so many — so many of the things that we do, it’s based on common sense, like the car. The car will end up with that net tremendous saving, environmentally, when you think of all the cars, the old cars, that will come off the road. You’ll end up with a very — a better car. And you’ll end up — environmentally, it will be ultimately much better.

So, with that, I’d like to introduce Mike Pence, our great Vice President. And, Mike, you might want to saw a few words and, very importantly, go around the table with a couple other people you want to introduce.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: We will. Thank you, Mr. President. And it’s a great day in America, where we cleared the threshold of 7 million jobs created. And I assured all these business leaders and owners around the table earlier, Mr. President, that they have a President who understands that, while you — you’ve advanced tax cuts and tax reform at a historic level, unleashed American energy, fought to open markets, free and fair trade, and rolled back regulation at a historic level, that — that you, as someone who built a lifetime in a business and grew up in a family business, understand that it’s — it’s businesses that create those jobs.

And we really have a group around us that’s done an incredible job, being a part of that extraordinary economic boom that’s underway.

But I assured them that, for all that we’ve accomplished, it’s just what you consider to be a good start. And today, several of them have welcomed the opportunity to share their stories of what, particularly, cutting federal red tape has meant to their businesses and how we can continue to build the momentum in this economy through more regulatory reform.

I’m going to introduce all three of them first, and then they can just go at — at their timing and yours.

Barb Smith is the President of Journey Steel, which was founded 10 years ago and based in Cincinnati. Ryan Newby is Vice President of the Bank of Laverne in Laverne, Oklahoma. And Drew DeWalt is Co-Founder of Rhumbix, Incorporated — a field data capture company that’s revolutionizing aspects of the construction industry — and also a Navy veteran.

And I’ll also encourage you to hear from Dana Weber, whose family business was started 50 years ago by her dad. And she told me she’s worked there for 48 of those years, growing up, and is a part of a burgeoning and growing pipe business in this country that’s benefitted by the efforts that you’ve taken on steel.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Yeah.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: So these are great job creators. And I’ve told all of them how grateful we were to have them here, for what they’re doing, and how anxious you are to hear how we can continue to build the momentum in this booming economy.

So, Barb.

THE PRESIDENT: Please. Yes.

MS. SMITH: So, thank you very much, Mr. President and Vice President, for giving me this incredible opportunity to be at this session. As said, my name is Barb Smith, and I’m the President of Journey Steel. Journey Steel is a self-performing steel fabrication and erection company. We’re headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

My partner and I established Journey in 2009, built on passion, integrity, and dependability. We provide on-time, safety-driven, in-budget projects to our clients, while also impacting the community.

We have a year-round paid, pre-apprenticeship program that targets inner-city high school seniors. So upon their graduation, we get them started on their career in the construction industry.

My company is certified 8(a), WOSB, MBE, and, on a state level, EDGE and DBE, which — these programs are put in place to help small, minority-women-owned businesses to grow. However, some of the regulations that are in place really hinder that opportunity for us.

If I may share an analogy —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, go ahead.

MS. SMITH: I’m Dorothy. The ruby-red slippers are the certifications that I have. And the agencies point me on the yellow brick road. I’ve made a lot of friends along the way. They’ve been very supportive on my journey to the Emerald City. (Laughter.) But when I got to the Emerald City, those big doors closed in my face because of some of the regulations that told me to go back, jump through some wicked hoops —

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

MS. SMITH: — which I managed to do. Got back; the doors were then opened, only for me to find another set of regulations behind the curtain.

So my ask of this administration would be: Remove those regulations. Let us get to the man behind the curtain who knows the power and those ruby-red slippers that they’ve given us to open those doors for contracts so that we can truly unpack them.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, did you write those regulations down? Did you think they’re — I assume you think they’re unnecessary. Because some regulation is needed.

MS. SMITH: They’re not — I won’t say they’re unnecessary. Like I said, great people in the SBA. I’ll use that as part of it. Like I said, they are tremendous. They know their job.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you know the ones that Barb is talking about?

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR PILKERTON: I gave her my direct line and e-mail. So we’re going to talk about that afterwards.

MS. SMITH: We’re going to talk about that later.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that right?

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR PILKERTON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

MS. SMITH: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And if we can do it, you do it.

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR PILKERTON: Yes, sir.

MS. SMITH: Yes. And they’re just simple. With the regulations, with a new 8(a) firm, being small, minority-women-owned, some of the things that we need — the biggest thing we need is a mentor. And in order to get a mentor who has the past performances, who has the bonding capabilities, who knows how to work for the government, which is one of the biggest spins in the construction industry, as you know; you spend billions and billions of dollars.

But for the small, minority-women-owned business, who can’t get to that company that’s already been there, the regulations are in place where these agencies can’t give me a list, they can’t help me find that mentor. And even though I may knock on the door, I may not get to the right person.

So that’s just a simple regulation that hopefully would be able to be removed — because if we’re able to get to the right people, understand that, get the mentors in place that help us grow so that we can hire more people, change the economy, get more people to work, that would truly benefit — which is what these programs, I believe, was established for to begin with, is to help the minority, small businesses be able to access federal contracts.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Good. Thank you, Barb, very much. Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Thank you. Thank you.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That’s great. That’s great.

Ryan.

MR. NEWBY: Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, thank you for the opportunity and your time today. I appreciate it very much. Ryan Newby, from Laverne, Oklahoma — northwest part of the state. I represent a small community bank in the Oklahoma Panhandle. And I say “small” — we’re $58 million in total assets, $26 million in loans.

A few points that I wanted to hit on was the reform and repeal of Dodd-Frank. We, like a lot of other banks in Oklahoma, got out of the mortgage-lending business due to the compliance red tape that we were having to deal with. Forty percent of the banks in Oklahoma got out the mortgage-lending business at that time.

And with your deregulation, we’ve been able to get back into that and serve our customers. We were sending them, you know, 40, 50 miles down the road to competition. So that’s been a big plus for banks like us.

A couple other points I’d like to make are — it probably don’t seem like big things to other people, but longer exam cycles for well-capitalized banks — you know, 18-month exam cycles, which helps cut down on compliance costs. We don’t have to deal with examiners as much; we can serve our customers. And also, the corporate tax rate being lowered from 34 percent to 21 percent saves us thousands of dollars a year to reinvest in our community and make more loans for our customers.

So, again, thank you —

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ryan.

MR. NEWBY: — for everything you guys have been doing.

THE PRESIDENT: Good job you’re doing. I’ve heard some good things. Great. Thank you very much.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That’s great.

Drew.

MR. DEWALT: Thank you. Mr. President, it’s an honor to be here today. My grandfather was a World War Two Navy veteran and spent the rest of his career running a small business — a construction company. And so I guess you could say I followed in his footsteps.

I’m also a Navy veteran. Got into construction afterwards. I actually developed into building large infrastructure projects and then started my own small business. It’s a technology company providing technologies for construction companies to operate more efficiently.

I really think, until we started our business, Rhumbix — my co-founder is actually a Navy veteran as well.

THE PRESIDENT: Great.

MR. DEWALT: So until we started our business, nobody had built technology and software solutions for the men and women actually building construction. You don’t get it built and somebody’s hands get put on it. So that’s what our business does to really drive efficiency in the construction industry.

And through this experience, I’ve gained a great appreciation for the construction industry — all the good that it does. But, as you well know, with all of your building completed, it’s a — it can get pretty complicated, costly, and inefficient. So I love the dereg- — deregulation approach we’re taking here.

As part of my business, I get to go to construction companies — boots on the ground — across the country. And I’ve seen the drag that over- — overdue-for-a-good-look regulation has on the industry.

That being said, none of the builders that I meet with and work with have ever seen the industry booming as much as it has right now. They have the largest work backlogs that they’ve ever had. And the only thing constraining the industry right now is finding enough people to do the work.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s right.

MR. DEWALT: So if we can — sidebar — drive more people and encourage more people to join the trades, which is a lucrative individual business and can prop up this part of the economy, that would be welcomed.

But there’s still more issues to be solved. You know, I think — I see a lot of companies doing federal contracting work that have added costs to their business — of specific software and overhead and head count just for compliance. No other economic result on the business, other than making sure you’re compliant or you’re going to get fined later.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure. It’s too much. I agree.

MR. DEWALT: And then I see good projects getting done, and they’re still not out of risk, because — I had a contractor tell me: About six months after a job being completed, they got sued for payroll noncompliance. They had to fly somebody from the U.S. to Australia to dig through the garage of a former employee for a legal box, looking for the right paperwork to verify so they didn’t get sued.

You’ve done enough building, I’m sure you’ve been in a similar situation. It’s crazy. These inefficiencies still exist, and I think there’s just such a good opportunity.

I think what I do on the technology front is important for taking an industry that’s trying to move forward, actually to take that next step. But I think the regulation piece, candidly, is a bigger opportunity — that everybody is championing around this table — so that you can actually look for opportunities to remove duplicative regulations from the federal, state, and local level that actually drive even more efficiency. Because it’s the second-largest industry in the nation, and if you can put more juice in the tank there, you can get even better results.

And I’d love to help anyway I can, but I appreciate you inviting me here today to share my story.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s great. Yeah, thank you very much. Good job. Good job you’re doing.

You know, we have a lot of things that we’re working on. One of them is — to build a road can take 22 years to get approvals. And we’ve got it way down now. We had — we have roads where they’ve been going for many, many — they’ve been going for decades. Elaine knows this better than anybody. And at the end of 20 years —

SECRETARY CHAO: I’m taking notes. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Right? At the end of 20 years, you’re literally — you go for a vote, and you get turned down. So they’ve been trying to get an approval for 20 years, and then they get turned down, like 3-2 or something.

And we’ve got that process down to four and a half years. It’s going to be — I think it’s going to be two years. We’re going to try and get it down to almost one year. That doesn’t mean a road or a highway doesn’t get approved. But if they don’t get approved, it goes quickly, so they get rejected quickly.

MR. DEWALT: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: But they also, mostly, will get approved quickly.

And Elaine is doing a fantastic job in bringing that down. We’ve had so many — so many examples of roads that took 17, 18, 19 years to get approved. And by the time they get approved, they cost 50 times more and they have to do all sorts of turns to get out of certain areas, from an environmental standpoint, instead of being a straight and much safer road.

So we’ve been able to do that. And I think those people in the steel industry have been greatly helped by the tariffs, because the tariffs made the steel industry — it’s incredible what’s happening — the money that is being spent on steel today. I don’t think we would have had a steel industry. If I — if I didn’t get elected, you wouldn’t have a steel industry, because, ultimately, every steel mill was closing. They were dumping steel at a level that nobody has ever seen before. And they were dumping it in order to, really, destroy our steel industry so that we had to buy from them.

And now the steel industry — if you look at what’s going on, the industry is doing incredibly well. They’re building a lot of extensions. They’re building brand-new plants where they never — you know this, Russell — they never built a new plant. I mean, they hadn’t built one in years, and now they’re building new plants all over the country. They’re expanding existing plants all over the country. And the steel industry is doing great. And it will start doing even better with what we’re doing.

So it’s been very exciting, especially since the economy is now even stronger than at the beginning.

And I think what I’d like to do is ask Larry Kudlow — the great Larry Kudlow — to say a few words. The numbers came out today — the job numbers and —

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: If I may, just based on what you just said, Dana Weber is in the steel industry —

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Let’s go. I hope you back me up.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: — and had a few things she wanted to share before —

THE PRESIDENT: I hope I get backed up here. (Laughter.)

MS. WEBER: I am absolutely going to back you up.

THE PRESIDENT: Good.

MS. WEBER: I’m going to tell you that — first of all, you’re the first President in the 40 years plus I’ve been in this business that’s actually stood up for manufacturing. And I want to say thank you.

The tariffs and the trade policies that you have, have made a huge difference for us and a big difference. We are investing at record levels — we have over the last three years. We are paying profit-sharing bonuses and wage increases at record levels over the last years. And we are having companies, customers come out of the woodwork that we didn’t even know existed — coming to us because — to inquire and to buy steel from us. We made specialty steel tubing.

So you have made a tremendous difference.

THE PRESIDENT: Great, Dana. That’s great.

MS. WEBER: And that’s on top of all the tax relief and the regulatory burdens that I just want to — as I said earlier, please keep doing what you’re doing for at least five more years. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Good. We love the word, “at least,” — the words. (Laughter.) They like to hear that. Thank you, Dana.

No, it’s been a big difference in the steel indus- — and many industries. But the steel industry, in particular, was — we weren’t going to have a steel industry. And that’s so unacceptable, even from a defense standpoint. I mean, can you imagine if we have to — if we need — if we need steel and we have to go to another country to get steel? And that was what was happening. Everything was closing down — and very unfairly and done with purpose. I mean, these people were coming in with a purpose — a negative purpose.

So they’re not too happy, but our people are very happy. And the industry is doing fantastically well. It will soon be at numbers that will be almost like the old days and maybe like the old days.

Larry Kudlow, you also had good manufacturing numbers today. I noticed 50,000 jobs or something created over a short period of time. And the previous administration said — manufacturing — “you’d need the magic wand.” You know, we’ve all heard the statement. But they basically said it was a dead business, when in fact it’s one of the most important sets of jobs I think you can have anywhere.

Could you give a little discussion as to what took place today when they announced the numbers early in the morning?

Mr. KUDLOW: I would be happy to. Thank you, sir. By the way, you’re right; we’re still running over 500,000 new manufacturing jobs. So that’s a big plus.

Just a couple of quick ones: The report today was plus-266,000 jobs for the month of November, but the prior two months were revised higher by 41,000. So actually, today’s number is 307,000. After you and I spoke last night, I went back and crosschecked. And sure enough, this is the fourth-straight month of upward revisions from the prior period. And that’s a leading indicator of a strong economy.

A couple of other quickies on this: 3.5 percent unemployment rate; that’s near the 50-year low. Since you’ve been President, the average working family — right? — husband, wife, two kids — after inflation, after taxes, has gone up $5,000. That’s take-home pay — $5,000. The prior two administrations were basically flat.

And then, part of this worker boom — this American worker boom theme — so since you’ve been President, the production workers are increasing their wages at a 3.7 percent annual rate. Okay? Production workers: 3.7 percent annual increase. Their managers’ wages are rising 1.6.

So, the folks on the line — the folks wearing the blue collars or whatever, the folks getting their hands dirty — they are working so well, their wage gains are almost twice the gains of their own managers. You know what? I’ve never seen it before and, as you know, I’ve been around three or four centuries. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Great job. You did great this morning, too.

MR. KUDLOW: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: A lot of shows, and really did fantastic. Well, they’re easy numbers really to work with, aren’t they? Those numbers were great.

MR. KUDLOW: It’s a sunny day, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. No, it’s very good. Really, very good.

Elaine, maybe you want to discuss a little bit about transportation and, in particular, the highway and the building of the highways and the roads and everything that we’re working on so hard?

SECRETARY CHAO: Well, this is a President that really cares about the condition of our infrastructure. And we continue to want to work with the Congress on a bipartisan basis. You’ve always said that.

As a down payment to the President’s proposal — infrastructure — the Department spends about $70 billion every single year to address, to refurbish, rehabilitate bridges, roads, highways. And so we remain very focused on our goal, as the President has wanted. He has also asked us to look at the permitting process and how important that is to, I know, several of you around this table and others, of course, who are in this business.

So, he’s been a very strict taskmaster. He has asked that for every two new — every one new regulation, we’ve got to withdraw at least two. And I think the whole administration has done much better. Brooke mentioned that, for every one new regulation, about 7.5 — seven and a half regulations have been withdrawn. So, this is a tremendous, you know, lifting of the burden on people’s backs — small businesses in particular.

And I want also want to mention one other thing the President mentioned about the Safe Vehicle Act. You know, when we have — we all care about the environment, but when cars cost too much people, don’t trade in their cars. And when that happens and people keep older cars, that’s actually unsafe.

So our new fuel economy standard will be one of this administration’s biggest legacies, in terms of a deregulatory action. And it’s going to introduce and improve safety on top of that, because also cars that are too light are not safe.

So, Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: And you’re working on — yeah.

SECRETARY CHAO: — you’ve also led the way on that.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. And you’re working on air traffic control?

SECRETARY CHAO: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: And that’s something that, to me, is very important — because we have a system that’s obsolete. It’s ridiculous. It’s a ground-based system, which nobody can even imagine because that’s a 40-year-old system. They’ve spent billions and billions and billions of dollars over the years trying to upgrade it when you can buy a new system — brand-new, with the top of the line. There are basically four companies that are in that business. But you can buy a new system for less money than it costs to renovate little pieces of this old, obsolete system.

I’ve been in planes where the pilots don’t even want to use our system. They use another country’s system to land in New York City or to land in other parts of the country, like Oklahoma. (Laughter.) But they’ll use somebody else’s — they’ll use somebody else’s system. Air traffic control — it’s obsolete, and we’re working on a project where we make a deal to get a great system. And we’ll — hopefully, we can meet on that soon. Maybe with your people we’ll talk about it, okay?

SECRETARY CHAO: May I ask —

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.

SECRETARY CHAO: I have one more thing. The Vice President and you are both here. You have a tremendous interest in commercial space. And six years ago, the U.S. was way behind all other countries. In the last three — two and a half years, under your leadership and the Vice President’s leadership of the Space Council, America is once again number one in commercial space launches.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Number one. Number one by far. So, we’ve done very well with space.

Gene Scalia, you’ve done a good job in that first short period of time. Right? Secretary of Labor. You want to just say what’s going on? I know you called me this morning to say how great the numbers are.

SECRETARY SCALIA: Yeah. I called you this morning. I’ve been in this job two months. I mean, it’s such a treat to be able to report these numbers —

THE PRESIDENT: What a job — what a job he’s done. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY SCALIA: Four hundred and twenty-two thousand jobs in the two months that I’ve been in the position. And I get to talk to the American people about these results.

And, you know, this is cause and effect, right? It’s cause and effect. The effect is unprecedented numbers. They’re spectacular. And wages. I mean, that’s so important. And wages at the lower level are going up more, as Larry was saying.

And the effect and the cause, we know what it is. Right? It’s what we’re here talking about. It’s the tax cuts. It’s the deregulation. And so it’s cause and effect.

And I bet you, if we went around the table, apart from wanting to deal with regulations, and keep at that — right? — apart from that, I bet that one of the biggest things on these folks’ minds right now is finding workers. That’s a challenge to small business. That’s how strong our economy is. When you talk to business people, one of the biggest worries they have is finding workers.

And so, we heard — Michael was talking a little about helping with reentry. Barb, you were talking about apprenticeships. Those are things that, Mr. President, you’re focusing on, and the Vice President, too. So we’re addressing that, but I mention it just to show how strong the economy is right now. And you know — and again, that’s the effect of the things that you’ve been causing through these policies.

THE PRESIDENT: Great job. Great job.

So thank you very much, everybody. Very successful period of time for our country. The most successful probably in the history of our country. We’ve never done anything like that. We’ve never had these unemployment numbers or employment numbers. And we’re very happy about it. A lot of hard work.

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

Q Mr. President, what can you tell us about the shooter in the Pensacola incident?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s all being studied now. We’ll have a full report on it very shortly.

Q Is this — could this be considered a terrorism act?

THE PRESIDENT: We’re not going to report on that yet, but we’ll be talking about it very soon. It could — we have a lot of great people looking at it and interviewing people in depth. And it’ll be a report, and the report will come out very soon.

Thank you all very much. Thank you.

Q How do you plan to respond to Jerry Nadler’s invitation? Jerry Nadler’s invitation?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Q What’s your thinking about the tariffs, Mr. President?

Q (Inaudible) five o’clock? Five o’clock?

THE PRESIDENT: Could be. Could be.

Q Jerry Nadler’s invitation?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

END 2:56 P.M. EST

Speaker Pelosi Instructs House Chairman to Assemble Articles of Impeachment…


With the House calendar extended to December 20th it now appears the full House vote on articles of impeachment will take place within this year. Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her instructions to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to assemble the formal articles of impeachment to be brought to the House floor.

~ Read Speaker Pelosi Announcement HERE ~

Speaker Pelosi did not provide many details; however, Democrats have said they are considering multiple articles of impeachment against Trump including abuse of power, obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to draw up articles of impeachment as soon as next week.

This is the first time in History that articles of impeachment will be assembled without an official full house vote to initiate the impeachment process. This is also the first impeachment effort without the House attaining recognized judicial enforcement authority.  The vote will take place before the Supreme Court weighs-in on the legal framework for the House effort. The House judicial enforcement authority, not being recognized by the Supreme Court, likely had a strong bearing on the timing.

The awakened American middle-class insurgency, led by Donald Trump, is an existential threat to the professional political class and every entity who lives in/around the professional political class. Their entire political apparatus is threatened by our insurgency. The political industry, all of corrupt governance, is threatened by our support through Donald Trump.

You know why the entire apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why the corrupt Wall Street financial apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why every institutional department, every lobbyist, every K-Street dweller, every career legislative member, staffer, and the various downstream economic benefactors, including the corporate media, all of it – all the above, are united against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is an existential threat to the existence of a corrupt DC system we have exposed to his disinfecting sunlight. Donald Trump is the existential threat to every entity who benefits from that corrupt and vile system.

Biden Bit My Finger: Plus, Kids Loved to Rub Joe’s Hairy Legs


You won’t believe a leading candidate for president said this — or did that — but former Veep Joe Biden tells a weird tale about his days as a lifeguard, and he bite’s his wife’s finger…on the campaign stump. Did Biden’s speech writer pen the story about how kids loved to rub Joe’s hairy legs? Does he have anyone on his staff to restrain him from raving? Should we be seriously concerned that something is mentally wrong with the leading Democratic presidential candidate? Right Angle with Stephen Green, Bill Whittle and Scott Ott, comes to you 16 times each month, thanks to our Members, who get to enjoy an additional four Backstage episodes, plus write their own blog, and interact with a comments forum and private messaging on our website at https://BillWhittle.com – Become a Member at https://BillWhittle.com/register/ – Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/billwhittle – Listen to our shows on the go with your podcast app: http://bit.ly/BWN-Podcasts – Watch us now on Amazon’s Fire TV by downloading the Bill Whittle Network app. http://bit.ly/BWN-FireTV – Ask your Amazon smart device, “Alexa, play Bill Whittle Network on TuneIn radio.” – We’re on Bitchute too: http://bit.ly/BWN-Bitchute

The Big Bang and the Process Unfolding into 2025


QUESTION:  Hi Martin, I am a long time follower and devoted to your blogs. It’s something that goes well with that first cup of coffee in the morning. In your responses to some people regarding an alternate place to escape from government tyranny, I would suggest that it is not easy for many who have a spouse, family or grandchildren (if if you have the means to do so). Another aspect is how does one assess whether the place they are moving to will have a stable government five years from now or longer, because there is always the threat from another country wanting your resources, workers, strategic land, etc. I don’t think it is easy for anyone to up and move away from family and friends whom they would leave behind – and contact via social media, well, that’s doesn’t work for me.

Thank you.

PP

ANSWER: The cracks in the system will begin to appear next year. This is part of the Big Bang that began 2015.75, and was the PEAK in government confidence. As this unfolds, it will become clearer as to where to go. Keep in mind that the collapse in governments is predominantly in the West. There will be rising separatist movements, so we will see varying pockets of political unrest. We are just too far away from that for me to speak without guessing. It does appear that Asia will be the better place in general. They are not embracing socialism or this insane climate change agenda

NATO Bilat #1 – President Trump and French President Macron Deliver Extensive Remarks – Video and Transcript…


The primary hypocrite behind the self-serving European NATO position is French President Emmanuel Macron.  With the background of massive new U.S. tariffs expected against French products President Macron comes for a bilateral meeting and press availability with U.S. President Donald Trump.  [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] –  PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. It’s great to be with President Macron of France. And we’ve had a fairly long relationship and a very good one. And we were just discussing certain things, and then we’re going to have a long conversation afterwards.

I want to, first of all, before we begin, I want to pay my respects to the great warriors that you lost in Mali — 13, and helicopters. It was very sad. I’ve gotten a report on it. We talked about it. And please give my condolences to the families and to France. And they’re great fighters. You’ve done a fantastic job in that whole area. It’s a tough area. So we appreciate it very much.

And we’ll be talking about a lot of things, including NATO and including trade. We do a lot of trade with France, and we have a minor dispute. I think we’ll probably be able to work it out. But we have a big trade relationship, and I’m sure that, within a short period of time, things will be looking very rosy, we hope.

And that’s usually the case with the two of us. We get it worked out. We’ve had a lot of good — a lot of good things. We’ve done a lot of good things together, as partners. Our countries have been partners in many good ventures, including some having to do with radical Islam and others. And it’s always worked out. So I look forward to our discussion.

We made a lot of progress in our first 25 minutes, and we intend to make a lot of progress in our next hour, maybe hour and a half.

So thank you very much, my friend.

PRESIDENT MACRON: (Speaks French.) (Translation inaudible.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay. Thank you very much.

Q President Trump, do you have a better understanding of what President Macron was saying about NATO?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we just began discussing NATO. And what I’m liking about NATO is that a lot of countries have stepped up, I think, really at my behest. And to — also, yourself, you’re close to the level. But they’ve stepped up and they’ve put up a lot of money. I told you, it was $130 million — $130 billion. And that’s a lot.

And they’re now stepping up again. It’s going to be $400 billion over a very short — we have commitments for $400 billion. And we just left the Secretary General. And he — he’s got some things that are very important. And I discussed with him the flexibility, so that we have it not just with one area of the world — you and I discuss this all the time — we have all areas of the world, because NATO is a lot different than it was. And now it’s certainly a lot different over the last three years.

So we have a lot of countries stepping up and putting up a lot of money. The number, as of this moment, is exactly $131 billion — that’s a year. And that’s a tremendous amount of money, but it’s not enough. And they also raise and have commitments for $400 billion.

So NATO, which was really heading in the wrong direction three years ago — it was heading down. If you look at a graph, it was to a point where I don’t think they could have gone on much longer. Now it’s actually very strong and getting stronger. Many people are committed to that 2 percent. And ultimately, I think the 2 percent will be raised.

And the President and I, I think, feel that we need more flexibility — and I think we both agree on that — so that we can use it for other things, not just looking at one specific country. You know, a lot of people say it was meant to look at, originally, the Soviet Union — now Russia. But we also have other things to look at, whether it’s radical Islamic terrorism, whether it’s the tremendous growth of China. There are a lot of other things.

So NATO is becoming different than it was, much bigger than it was, and much stronger than it was because people are now fulfilling their commitments. There are some countries that aren’t fulfilling their commitment, and those countries are going to be dealt with. Maybe I’ll deal with them from a trade standpoint. Maybe I’ll deal with them in a different way. I’ll work something out where they have to pay.

But, you know, we don’t want to have people delinquent. We don’t have — I don’t think it’s fair for us to be involved — including France, by the way — to be involved, and you have countries that aren’t paying their way. They — you know, they’re less than 1 percent. You have a couple that are less than 1 percent. Not fair.

So NATO has made a lot of progress over the last three years, and the word “flexibility” is very important. They’re not just looking at one area now; they’re looking at the world. And that’s very important. To me, it’s very important.

Please.

PRESIDENT MACRON: I know that my statements created some reactions and shake a little bit a lot of people. I do stand by it. And I have to say, when you look at what NATO is and should be: First of all, this is a burden share. And President Trump just reminded you of some figures and the fact that this is perfectly true that the U.S. over-invested, decade after decade, and it is number one, by far.

And I do share this statement. That’s why I’m a strong supporter of a stronger European component in NATO, which is exactly what we have done. So, in terms of cost sharing, we are investing 1.9 percent of our GDP. We are increasing our GDP. We will be at (inaudible).

[/Insert – Macron is a fibbersee below]

But when we speak about NATO, it’s not just about money. We have to be respectful these are our soldiers. The first burden we share, the first cost we pay, is our soldiers’ lives. And I do believe that, in such circumstances, we do pay what we have to pay for collective security.

When I look at the situation in Syria, in Iraq, but as well as Sahel, France is definitely present. It’s my first point, is that we have, today, strategy clarifications to be done. It’s impossible just to say, “We have to put money, we have to put soldiers.” We have to be clear on the fundamentals of what NATO should be. And this is not the case today. What about peace in Europe? I want clarification about that.

After the decision of the end of the INF Treaty, we have to build something new. Because now this is a risk for Germany, France, and a lot of European countries to have new missiles coming from Russia, exposing us. We need such a clarification. And I want the European component to be part of the future negotiations of such a new INF Treaty.

When we speak about the enemy, I would say, of the Alliance, what is the objective? To protect our partners against external threats. And France will do it, and we will have full solidarity vis-à-vis eastern and northern states in Europe. But the common enemy today are the terrorist groups, as we mentioned. And I’m sorry to say that we don’t have the same definition of terrorism around the table.

When I look at Turkey, they now are fighting against those who fight with us, who fought with us, shoulder to shoulder, against ISIS. And sometimes they work with ISIS forces. This is an issue, and this is a strategic issue. If we just have discussion about what we pay, and we don’t have clear discussions about the situation, we are not serious; we are not serious for our soldiers, we are not serious for our people. This is the very reason of my statements.

I do believe we need strategic clarifications: How to build long-term peace in Europe. Who is the enemy today? And let’s be clear and work all together on that.

I know that we do share exactly the same view. Having less (inaudible) exposure of the U.S. means more European investment and more (inaudible) on the European side. I do agree. Being strict and very efficient against terrorist groups means having clear, clear definition of these groups and no ambiguity. I think we do that.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, one thing I will also — I’d like to say that you’ve been really doing a great job in Africa, and you’ve been very much involved there, more than most. And that’s been fantastic. I appreciate you saying the United States, for decades, have been paying, really, way, way disproportionately too much for NATO. And you’d have other countries paying far too little that are very directly benefitted by it and by the United States involvement.

And we’re changing that around somewhat, and it’s very important. But we’re a very important player. I think, without us, NATO certainly is not the same thing, as we’ve discussed and discussed it at length. This morning, we discussed it with Secretary General Stoltenberg. But we’re behind you 100 percent. And all of the money that’s been raised and all of these countries that are all of the sudden putting up money, it’s a great thing to see.

But we do have a great — we really have a different objective, I think, right now. We’re looking at a much bigger picture. And that includes — well, it includes — you mentioned Iraq, but it really includes Iran, too. I think that if you look at what’s going on in Iran, they have massive riots. They’re having protests all over the country. And they’re killing a lot of people. Everybody knows that. That’s why they turned off their Internet systems, so nobody can find out.

But if the media would go there — and it’s, I think, very hard for the media to go there, frankly, right now. But they’re killing a lot of people.

But NATO has come a long way in three years, and it’s something that we’re very proud of, because we’re with them. NATO serves a fantastic function if everybody is involved. If they’re not involved — and I really believe that the President is very much involved and likes the idea of NATO, but he wants it also to be utilized properly. If it’s not utilized properly — we all agree, right? That’s no good.

So we’ve had a very good discussion. A lot of people — we’re meeting with a lot of countries later, as you know. And they’re really stepping up — for the most part, they’re all stepping up. We have one or two that aren’t, and we’ll have to deal with them in a different way.

Maybe we — as I said, we’ll deal with them on trade. We have a lot of power with respect to trade. They make a fortune with the United States, and then they don’t pay their bills. That’s no good. But NATO has come a long way in three years, and it’s become very powerful. I think very, very powerful. And it’s become, I think, a much fairer statement in terms of the United States, because we’re able to go down a little bit. We were paying 4 to 4.3 percent of the largest GDP ever. Nobody has ever had a GDP like we have right now. And nobody has come close. And other people were paying 1 percent; some people were paying less than 1 percent of a very small GDP. It’s not fair. And if they get attacked, we protect them. But it’s not fair. So a lot of changes have been made.

Phil, go ahead.

Q Yeah. Mr. President, what is your message to President Macron about America’s tech companies? And what will your process be in determining what additional products from France you might apply tariffs to?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Right. Well, we’re working on that right now. We have discussed it. I think we’ll be able to work something out, I hope. And maybe not. Maybe we’ll do it through taxing. You know, we could work it out easily through taxing.

But the techs — you know, they’re American companies — the tech companies that you’re talking about. They’re not my favorite people because they’re not exactly for me, but that’s okay. I don’t care. They’re American companies. And we want to tax American companies, Phil. That’s important. We want to tax them. That’s not for somebody else to tax them.

And, as the President knows, we taxed wine and we have other taxes scheduled. But we’d rather not do that. But that’s the way it would work. So it’s either going to work out, or we’ll work out some mutually beneficial tax. And the tax will be substantial. And I’m not sure it’s going to come to that, but it might. It might.

Q Mr. President, has France committed to step up when it comes to taking back foreign fighters in Syria?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I haven’t asked that to the President today. I have over the period of time. We have a tremendous amount of captured fighters — ISIS fighters — over in Syria, and they’re all under lock and key. But many are from France, many are from Germany, many are from UK. They’re mostly from Europe. And some of the countries are agreeing.

I have not spoken to the President about that. Would you like some nice ISIS fighters? I can give them to you. You can take — you can take everyone you can.

PRESIDENT MACRON: Let’s be serious: The very large number of fighters you have on the ground are ISIS fighters coming from Syria, from Iraq, and the region. It is true that you have foreign fighters coming from Europe, but this is a tiny minority of the overall problem we have in the region.

And I think number-one priority — because it’s not yet finished — is to get rid of ISIS and these terrorist groups. This is our number-one priority. And it’s not yet done. I’m sorry to say that. Yes, you still have fighters in this region — in Syria, and now in Iraq — and more and more. And the whole destabilization of the region makes the situation more difficult to fix the situation against ISIS.

Second, some of these foreign fighters are being (inaudible) in Iraq because of the deeds, precisely, they act in this very region. And we will have a case-by-case approach. We have a humanitarian approach for children already organized, and we will have a case-by-case approach.

But, for me, the very first objective in the region is to finish war against ISIS. And don’t make any mistake: Your number-one problem are not the foreign fighters. This is the ISIS fighters in the region. And you have more and more of these fighters due to the situation today.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: This is why he’s a great politician, because that was one of the greatest non-answers I’ve ever heard — (laughter) — and that’s okay.

PRESIDENT MACRON: Because sometimes you can have some temptation from the U.S. side — I don’t say about President Trump, but could be the press — to say, “This is European responsibility.” I’m sorry to say that.

We have some of our people, but if you don’t look at the reality of the situation that is number one — not to be ambiguous with these groups — this is why we started to discuss about our relations with Turkey. But I think any ambiguity with Turkey vis-à-vis these groups is detrimental to everybody for the situation on the ground.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: France has actually taken back some fighters. But we have a lot of fighters. We’ve captured a lot of people. And we have captured 100 percent of the caliphate, but you know that that means that it’s still — they keep going and going.

We sent a small contingent in, and we wiped out another portion of ISIS. We don’t want to happen, to me, what happened with President Obama, where it re-formed and then it became stronger than it was in the first place. So we don’t want that to happen.

And, as I said before: We’ve taken the oil. We have the oil. So we have total control of the oil so that they’re not going to be able to use that.

They use that oil to really — to fuel up their wealth, to fuel up their money. That was their primary source of income. And they get contributions. So we have, now, lists of where these contributions come from, which is very important. You have people contributing, if you can believe it. Some of these people are wealthy people that make contributions. And we have lists of —

Well, we learned a lot. You know, when we got al-Baghdadi, that was a great get. And when we killed him, we have a lot of information that I’m revealing now for the first time, but we also got a lot of good information.

So a lot of things are happening. And France has been very helpful, I have to say that. They’ve been very, very helpful.

Okay? Go ahead. Any other questions, please?

Q (Speaks French.) (Translation inaudible.)

PRESIDENT MACRON: (Speaks French.) (Translation inaudible.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I largely agree with that answer. I just have to say, though — you know, I came into a position where the European Union was making anywhere from 100 to 150 billion dollars a year in deficits to the United States. They were making it and we were losing it. And so we had to do something that is fair, not severe — I think fair. We’re losing tremendous amounts of money.

As you know, the European Union is very strong on barriers. Barriers — meaning, certain of our products can’t come in, including agricultural product. It just can’t come in. We can’t sell it. And yet, the European Union sells openly to the United States, and, generally, untaxed or taxed at a low level.

So these are problems that we’re talking about. These are problems that we’re working out. And, you know, the digital tax is the least of it. I inherited a situation where the European Union — which was formed, partially, for this reason; I guess, for a lot of reasons it was formed, but partially to make better or take advantage of the United States. And they’ve done that very brilliantly. And, frankly, it’s not right.

So, I’ve exposed it. A lot of people didn’t know it. And we’re doing things about it; we have no choice. Because the United States can’t continue to lose the kind of money that they’ve lost over the last — literally, since the formation of the European Union. And I think we’ll work something out.

They want to talk, as you know. The new head wants to talk, who is supposed to be a very respected woman, very highly respected. And I look forward to meeting her. They want to meet.

But we have a very unfair trade situation, where the U.S. loses a lot of money for many, many years with the European Union — billions and billions of dollars. I mean, to be specific, over $150 billion a year. So we don’t want to be doing that.

And we — we can make a deal. We could take a harsh approach. We could solve that problem instantaneously if we wanted to. But I don’t want to do that. These are friends of ours. These are people that we’ve had very extraordinary relationships with, and I do, personally. And I’m sure we can work something out.

Q You mentioned earlier the Iran protests. Does the United States support these protestors in Iran?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t want to comment on that. But the answer is “no.” But I don’t want to comment on that.

Q Mr. President, on Turkey, President Macron just said he wanted the United States to do more in terms of standing up to President Erdoğan and clarifying the terms of that relationship. Are you supportive of those efforts by other NATO Allies, or are you standing in the way of that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I can only say we have a very good relationship with Turkey and with President Erdoğan — I do. I can’t speak for the President of France. I mean, I — we have a very good relationship.

We pulled our soldiers out and we said, “You can patrol your own border now. I don’t care who you do it with, but we’re not going to have soldiers patrolling the border that’s been fought over for 2,000 years.”

But we took our soldiers out. We put some of those soldiers around the oil, where we’ve captured the oil and taken the oil. And we have the oil. But we’ve — and we’ve brought some home, and we will be bringing some home. And we’ve sent some to other areas. Okay?

Q Sir —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: But we have a very good relationship with Turkey.

Q Mr. President —

PRESIDENT MACRON: And just, on Turkey, to be clear: We have a lot of cooperation with Turkey — on security, on trade, migration. And so there is a full-fledged agenda with the European Union and France.

I do respect all leaders, whatever they can say, even bad things about myself. I do respect, and I never (inaudible) anybody.

But now, it’s a question for this NATO Summit. I think we need clarification from the Turkish side. This is not us to qualify them in what they are doing. But I do believe at least we have two clarifications to be asked: How is it possible to be a member of the Alliance, to work with our office, to buy our materials, to be integrated, and to buy the S-400 from Russians? Technically, it is not possible.

These clarifications to be provided by the Turkish President, as far as he wants to be part.

Secondly, I understand, from Turkey, that they want to block all the declarations of this summit if we do not agree about their definition of terrorist organizations — qualifying YPG and the others as terrorist groups, which is not our definition.

These two points have to be clarified if they want to — to be a serious member of the Alliance. I think so.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: This is why we’re — this is really why we’re having meetings. Those are our points. And we’ll be discussing that with the President today.

Yes.

Q Mr. President, will you issue sanctions on Turkey over their purchase of the S-400 missile system?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re looking at it now and we’re talking about it now. As you know, Turkey wanted to buy our Patriot system, and the Obama administration wouldn’t let them. And they only let them when they were ready to buy another system, which is not the same system.

But Turkey, for a long period of time, wanted very much to buy the Patriot system, which is our system, which is what NATO uses — which is a great system, which is the best system. But they wouldn’t sell it to Turkey.

So, you know, there are two sides to the story. I have to say this. But we will be discussing that with Turkey in a little while. We’ll be meeting with Turkey in a little while, and also tomorrow.

PRESIDENT MACRON: But to be clear about this point and to — for you to have them: The fuller view — they were discussing with the Europeans on SAMP/T, and we accepted to sell the SAMP/T to them. So these decisions is not you. And one of our (inaudible) explained, by the refusal of a few years ago of the Americans not to sell that Patriots. It’s their own decision, even having a European option, totally compliant with NATO. So they decided not to be compliant with NATO. (Inaudible.)

Q Sir — Mr. President, Prime Minister Johnson, I believe, is organizing some sort of discussion later today about the Syria conflict. Are you going to take part in that and meet with him? And if not, why?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Are you talking about Ambassador Johnson?

Q Boris Johnson.

Q Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, I thought you meant Woody Johnson.

Q No.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I said, “Boy, he’s really risen rapidly,” Woody. Where is Woody? Is he here? This is his house. I can’t believe he’s not here.

Yes, we’ll be meeting with Prime Minister Johnson in a little while. I’ll be seeing him later on. We’re going over to Number 10, which is a very exciting place to be, as you know. And we’ll be discussing a lot of different things.

Yes.

Q And one other related question: The London Bridge attack from a few days ago, do you have any comment here? Your first day in London —

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I don’t have a comment on the London Bridge attack, other than to say that I was very proud of those people that grabbed him and did such a good job, between the fire extinguishers and whatever else. It was an amazing job they did. And he was very violent; you could see that. I mean, this was captured very much on tape.

I think the — the way the — I think they were British citizens — the way they stepped up was incredible. That was really great.

So, a terrible thing. Terrible attack. A lot of people very badly hurt. I believe three or four killed. Is it four now, today? So, it’s terrible. It’s a terrible thing. And I know it’s an act of terrorism. It’s been declared an act of terrorism. Radical Islamic terrorism, by the way. And it’s very bad. Very bad.

But I think the way they stepped up, to me, that was something very special. Okay?

Q Mr. Trump, a question on Russia. Mr. Macron says that Russia shouldn’t be designated as an adversary of NATO. Do you agree with that? Do you think Russia is the enemy?

And, Mr. Macron, who is the enemy today?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don’t think he does feel that. I think we get along with Russia. I think we could get along with Russia. I think you feel we can get along with Russia. We’ve discussed that before.

But certainly, we have to be prepared. Whether it’s Russia or somebody else, we have to be prepared. But he and I have a pretty similar view on that. I think we feel that we can get along with Russia. And I think it’s a good thing to get along with Russia. And I campaigned on it. I mean, I’d go into big stadiums; people like it. And I think the Russian people would like to see it too. A lot of — a lot of good can come of it.

But the purpose of NATO is that, but the purpose of NATO can be much more. And that’s where we’re showing the flexibility over the last period of two years. Okay?

PRESIDENT MACRON: (Speak French.) (Translation is inaudible.)

Q (Speaks French.) (Translation is inaudible.)

PRESIDENT MACRON: (Speaks French.) (Translation is inaudible.)

Q (Speaks French.) (Translation is inaudible.)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: And I think the situation in Ukraine is very important. I think that the meetings coming up with Russia and Ukraine are very important. And there’s a possibility that some very big progress can be made. It’s very important for Ukraine. I think it’s very important from the standpoint of Russia, also, that they work out a treaty, they work out peace, because they’ve been fighting a long time. Too long. And I think there’s a really good chance that that will happen.

Also, with respect to nuclear weapons, I’ve spoken to President Putin and I’ve communicated with him. And we are — he very much wants to, and so do we, work out a treaty of some kind on nuclear weapons that will probably then include China at some point, and yourselves, by the way. But it will include China and some other countries.

But we intend to see if we can work something out to stop the proliferation, to stop what’s happening, because we are making a lot and we are renovating a lot. And, frankly, the whole situation with nuclear is not a good — it’s not a good situation. We ended the treaty because it wasn’t being adhered to by the other side. But they want to make a treaty, and so do we, and I think it would be a great thing. I think it’s one of the most important things we can do, frankly.

So, we’re going to be dealing with Russia on a treaty where we really — and we’re focused on nuclear and nuclear weapons — missiles — but nuclear weapons. And we think something can be worked out. We think they want to do it. We know they want to do it. And we want to do it also.

I spoke to China about it. They — during one of our trade negotiations, they were extremely excited about getting involved in that. So, some very good things can happen with respect to that. I think it’s very important. The whole nuclear situation — very, very important.

Okay? Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you.

END 3:03 P.M. GMT

President Trump Signs “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act”…


The act that President Trump signed today is a law that requires the U.S. to review all of the democracy issues within Hong Kong to assess whether any Chinese violations to Hong Kong autonomy are happening.  If so, the U.S. can take remedial steps to punish China.

The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would require the State Department annually re-certify Hong Kong’s autonomous nature, in order for the so-called “special treatment” the U.S. affords Hong Kong to continue. (more)

Keep in mind a dual purpose to this latest move:  Hong Kong holds a special trade status with the U.S. and is exempt from tariffs placed on China.  Part of the punitive action President Trump could take against China involves tariffs against Hong Kong.

Today, I have signed into law S. 1838, the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019” (the “Act”). The Act reaffirms and amends the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, specifies United States policy towards Hong Kong, and directs assessment of the political developments in Hong Kong.

Certain provisions of the Act would interfere with the exercise of the President’s constitutional authority to state the foreign policy of the United States. My Administration will treat each of the provisions of the Act consistently with the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations.

 President Donald J Trump

Again, back to the big picture, is this an action that would indicate President Trump is actually looking for a U.S-China trade agreement?   Of course not.  So why now, what changed?…  The USMCA!   It’s all connected folks.

President Trump China Strategy: Death By a Thousand Paper Cuts…


The New York Federal Reserve made a quiet admission two days ago that was missed by almost all financial media.  In the NY Fed economic blog they admitted everyone was wrong, President Trump’s 2017 tariffs against China did not lead to increased U.S. consumer prices [Read Here].  The Fed also said imports of the Chinese products affected by U.S. tariffs have fallen by an annualized $75 billion. That’s a huge chunk of business U.S. purchasers have shifted to Japan and other Southeast Asian countries.

.

Within this dynamic lays the real reason why Beijing cannot wait for a 2020 election hoping that Biden or Bloomberg can stop their bleeding.  Before going into more depth, this brief explainer from Charles Payne will help establish a framework.  WATCH:

What Payne outlines is correct; however, the internal Chinese ‘tariff-offset’ dynamic is actually even a little deeper.  Overlaying the NY Fed research we can see that Beijing has attempted to offset the Trump tariffs in four majority ways:

  • A devaluation of their currency by roughly 10% since the tariffs were implemented.  This makes the dollar a higher value when purchasing.  The U.S. dollar purchases more stuff.
  • Direct subsidies by the communist control authority.  That is a direct payment to the exporting Chinese company to offset the drop in prices they may need to be competitive.
  • Indirect subsidies.  Remember, China is a communist system.  Beijing can tell a province to cancel the electricity bill to a company within that province.  Beijing absorbs the cost.
  • Incentives for enhanced end-product delivery.  As Payne noted in the video the Chinese company just give the purchaser more stuff at the same price.  That additional stuff offsets the tariff cost.   This free stuff shows up in new contract terms.

All of this is an effort by China to diminish the impact of U.S. tariffs against their exports.  However, all of this cumulative effort, while small in the individual pieces, when added up is a big economic cost to Beijing.  Thus the overall economic loss is starting to snowball as the accumulation of offsets is beginning to aggregate.  They cannot continue indefinitely.

China is suffering a slow death by a thousand paper-cuts.  The bleeding of cash in combination with the direct loss of $75 billion in annualized exported products that U.S. companies have now sourced from alternative ASEAN nations is biting hard.

The direct outcome is also a drop in China’s purchasing of industrial goods they would normally use in the manufacturing process.  This lack of Chinese purchasing is one of the top reasons for the stall in the European economy.

There is a natural lag as supply chains reorient.  The ASEAN nations that have picked up U.S. manufacturing contracts first go through a process of increased productivity, expanded utilization of existing manufacturing, before they need to expand to new facilities.    Machines operate 20 hours daily – instead of 16 hours; more shifts are added, etc.  Until production reaches 100% capacity no ASEAN group is going to purchase the warehoused industrial machinery, not purchased by China, and being stored in the EU.

In this investment, lending and financing dynamic, is where the current Wall Street multinational corps and banks are stalled and watching closely.  No-one wants to drop $100 million to help expand a textile company in Vietnam, if Mexico -via the USMCA- ends up being a more cost efficient location.  This status is why passage of the USMCA is an important next step for President Trump’s global trade reset.

A final word on a question often asked.  What is President Trump doing with the trade negotiations with China?  What’s his end?

The answer to that question is actually where one must overlay Trump’s history of energy policy, with the visible signs of his China trade reset that began with his visit to Southeast Asia in November 2017.

President Trump is famously impatient in achieving a financial objective.  He is known to have well thought plans, but he is also known to not pause long when executing his plan. This economic impatience may seem to be at odds with the majority of the financial media who say President Trump is playing a long-game with Chairman Xi Jinping.

ERGO the dichotomy is explained thus:  If President Trump is famously impatient, then why is he being so deliberate and painfully slow in achieving a deal with Chairman Xi?…

Here’s the ‘ah-ha’ moment.

….The current status with China was the final objective.

President Trump looks like he’s being stunningly patient because President Trump achieved his goal when no-one was paying attention. We are already past the success point.

The goal is essentially achieved.

There is no actual intent to reach a trade deal with China where the U.S. drops the tariffs and returns to holding hands with a happy panda playing by new rules.  This fictional narrative is a figment of fantasy being sold by a financial media that cannot fathom a U.S. President would be so bold as to just walk away from China.

That ‘walk away’ is exactly what President Trump did when he left all of those meetings in Southeast Asia in 2017; and every moment since has been setting up, and firming up, an entirely new global supply chain without China.

President Trump is not currently engaged in a substantive trade agreement in the formal way people are thinking about it.  Instead “Phase-One” is simply President Trump negotiating the terms of a big Agricultural purchase commitment from Beijing, and also protecting some very specific U.S. business interests (think Apple Co.) in the process.

The actual goal of President Trump’s U.S-China trade reset is a complete decoupling of U.S. critical manufacturing within China.

President Trump does not express angst, frustration, or even disappointment over the U.S-China trade discussions because the decoupling is well underway.

.

Happy Thanksgiving !

First Family Departs White House For Thanksgiving Holiday in Florida…


President Trump, First Lady Melania and Barron depart the White House heading to Florida for the Thanksgiving holiday.  Young Barron is now taller than dad.

The President,  Melania and Barron emerged at 3:53 p.m. from the Oval Office and walked past the assembled press with a few waves. The president did not take any questions but walked with his family to Marine One, which was wheels up at 3:57 p.m.

The Press Corps was dusted upon lift-off…. it’s almost like the pilots decided to hover a little longer than normal. LOL.

Jack Holmes

@jackholmes0

“It’s faux access,” said a senior White House reporter who has mostly stopped participating. “It’s a joke.” https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29931870/trump-chopper-talk-white-house-reporters-helicopter/ 

ChopperTalk: Where America’s Top Political Journalists Go to Get Abused by the World’s Most…

President Trump insists on speaking with the White House press corps while a helicopter motor roars in the background. Why do they put up with it?

esquire.com

#ThePersistence

@ScottPresler

I asked @realDonaldTrump if he will release the transcripts of @JoeBiden & Ukraine.

Embedded video

2,299 people are talking about this