A few days ago Samsung announced they would stop production and manufacturing of Televisions in China by November.  Today they announce they will stop the sales of high-tech chips to Chinese owned Hauwei.

ANDROID HEADLINES – In the latest blow to Huawei, South Korean chip manufacturers Samsung and HK Hynix will reportedly cease all trades with the Chinese company beginning next week. This comes after the US Department of Commerce last month announced an amendment to the trade restrictions it imposed on Huawei back in May.

According to reports from various Korean news outlets, the companies will suspend trade on September 15th. That’s when the new set of rules come into effect. The rules bar any American or non-American company that uses a US-origin software or technology from selling components to Huawei. Any such trade would require the companies to obtain special approval from the American government.

TSMC has reportedly already suspended trades with Huawei following the first round of restrictions in May. With Samsung and HK Hynix also now forced to stop selling components to the Chinese giant, it poses a serious threat to the company’s smartphone business. (READ MORE)

Not coincidentally in May Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) announced they were going to invest in a new high-tech center in Arizona.   A manufacturing facility for advanced 5 nanometer chip manufacturing is a steep investment decision costing around $12 billion.  The primary use of the chips would be for Apple Inc.

These moves are a direct result of President Trump playing the economic long-game with an assembly of interests… three results, all connected within a much bigger picture.

President Trump has been creating a dual position for several years; this is very unique because it is the same strategy used by China.  By expressing a panda mask, yet concealing the underlying dragon, President Trump’s policy to China is a mirror of themselves.

Historic Chinese geopolitical policy, vis-a-vis their totalitarian control over political sentiment (action) and diplomacy through silence, is evident in the strategic use of the space between carefully chosen words, not just the words themselves.

Each time China takes aggressive action (red dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and the action continues. The red dragon has a tendency to say one necessary thing publicly, while manipulating another necessary thing privately.  The Art of War.

President Trump is the first U.S. President to understand how the red dragon hides behind the panda mask.

First he got their attention with tariffs.  Then… On one hand President Trump has engaged in very public and friendly trade negotiations with China (panda approach); yet on the other hand, long before the Wuhan virus, Trump fractured their global supply chains, influenced the movement of industrial goods to alternate nations, and incentivized an exodus of manufacturing (dragon result).

It is specifically because he understands that Panda is a mask that President Trump messages warmth toward the Chinese people, and pours vociferous praise upon Xi Jinping, while simultaneously confronting the geopolitical doctrine of the Xi regime.

In essence Trump was mirroring the behavior of China while confronting their economic duplicity.

There is no doubt in my mind that President Trump has a very well thought out long-term strategy regarding China. President Trump takes strategic messaging toward the people of china very importantly. President Trump has, very publicly, complimented the friendship he feels toward President Xi Jinping; and praises Chairman Xi for his character, strength and purposeful leadership.

To build upon that projected and strategic message – President Trump seeded the background by appointing Ambassador Terry Branstad, a 30-year personal friend of President Xi Jinping.

To enhance and amplify the message – and broadcast cultural respect – President Trump used Mar-a-Lago as the venue for their first visit, not the White House.  And President Trump’s beautiful granddaughter, Arabella, sweetly serenaded the Chinese First Family twice in Mandarin Chinese song showing the utmost respect for the guests and later for the hosts.

All of this activity mirrors the duplicity of China.  From the November 2017 tour of Asia to the January 2020 China phase-1 trade deal, President Trump has been positioning, for an economic decoupling and a complete realignment of global trade and manufacturing.

The announcements by TSMC, HK Hynix and Samsung are one part of a much bigger economic reset currently underway.  Beijing isn’t stupid, they can see themselves being outwitted and outplayed.  President Trump is winning.

Director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, appears on Fox News to discuss the current state of the economy and the administration efforts to support key businesses that are still suffering from the worst financial damage.

Additionally, Mr. Kudlow discusses the nomination of President Trump to receive the Nobel prize for peace.

The White House provides background information for next weeks historic signing of a peace agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel.

[Transcript] – MR. VASQUEZ: Hey, good afternoon, everybody. I have here Senior Advisor to the President, Jared Kushner.

He will give updates on the latest on the Middle East peace efforts, namely next week’s historic signing between the United Arab Emirates and Israel of the Abraham Accords, and today’s great development of President Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

This call will be on the record, and with that, I will turn it over to Jared.

MR. KUSHNER: Thank you very much, Eddie, and thank you all for joining us today.

So, first of all, it was — President Trump was very, very honored to be nominated this morning for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in bringing the Middle East closer together and the peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.

Having just traveled back from the region, I can say that the feeling that I felt there was completely different on the last trip than it has been for the last three and a half years. There is a tremendous sense of optimism in the Middle East and people thinking about what is possible and how can we move forward to improve, you know, our respective countries, bring the region together, settle old disputes, and create new futures and new opportunities.

If you think about it, it’s under a month ago, on just the 13th of August, that we the historic call between President Trump, the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, and Prime Minister Netanyahu where they agreed to take a big step forward for peace through normalizing relations.

Since then, we’ve seen a tremendous amount of activity. We — I was on, last week, the first commercial flight from Israel to United Arab Emirates, which flew over Saudi airspace. And we brought the delegations there to start the dialogues and to figure out how we get all the different agreements done that need to be done in order to get the tremendous amount of business that people want to have: technology exchange, education exchange, culture exchange, tourism exchange.

And the excitement is just really, really palpable. I would say that’s it’s almost like we’ve unleashed an energy positivity in the region that is really quite overwhelming, where the people who are optimists and forces who want to see something different are now feeling tremendous amounts of opportunity.

The next day on the trip, after we left Saudi Arabia, they agreed to open their airspace not just to flights from Israel to the United Arab Emirates and back, but to all eastward travel. So when people make requests, they’ll grant those requests. That will save people a lot of time. That knocks down a barrier that’s been up for 72 years. And again, you know, countries starting to, you know, let go of old conflicts and move in the direction of peace.

Bahrain, the next day, we were there, they did the same thing where they opened up their airspace. All of this will cut down a lot of the travel time between different countries. It allows people from Saudi to go to Europe faster; they can fly over Israel, and people from Israel to Asia, and Asia to Israel to have, you know, much more connectivity. But it’s a tremendous barrier that’s been — that’s been taken away.

You’re seeing every day new announcements of, you know, airlines that are looking to fly from Israel to different Arab cities that traditionally they weren’t allowed to go to. And backwards, you have a lot of excitement building in the Arab world and Muslim world with people wanting to go to Israel to visit the tourist sites and to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. You’re seeing Kosher restaurants opening up now in Dubai.

And so every day we’re seeing new and new announcements, which is showing the progress that this peace is bringing to the Middle East. And obviously, this morning, they announced that President Trump has been formally nominated for the Nobel Prize. And I think that it really is just a tremendous thing.

Next week, we’re going to do the signing here at the White House. We’re going to have representatives from Israel, the United Arab Emirates here with President Trump. We’ll have a good crew in attendance to be celebrating this accord. It’s really been bipartisanly praised here in America.

We saw today that the Arab League met; they did not condemn formally this agreement. And what we’re seeing now in the Middle East is that the tide is really changing and countries are doing now what’s in their best interests. Countries support the Palestinians. America supports the Palestinians. But people want to see a resolution that’s a fair and proper resolution, but they’re not going to hold back their own progress now in order to allow this conflict to continue to be stuck in the mud.

So again, over the last three and a half years, when President Trump came into office, the Middle East was a total mess. America alienated a lot of its allies. ISIS had a caliphate the size of Ohio. Iran was just given $150 billion and on a pathway to a nuclear weapon. They were funding proxies all over the region. That was causing grave instability.

And since then, President Trump has brought his allies closer. He significantly cut back on Iran’s resources that they’ve been using to fund terror and finance — finance bad behavior and militias. And, you know, we’ve seen that the territorial caliphate of ISIS has been taken back. We just met with the Iraqi Prime Minister, who has — who has that country, finally, on a positive trajectory.

And all of America’s allies feel much closer to America, and now they’re becoming closer to each other and breaking barriers that people thought previously were not breakable. So it really is a very hopeful time in the Middle East.

Why this matters to America: Obviously here, in the last election, ISIS was a big fear of a lot of people. We’d had a lot of terror threats that were inspired and, in some cases, planned from the region. We had a lot of U.S. troops who have been in that region, patrolling. A lot of American military members were killed in action or wounded in wars in the Middle East.

President Trump is making peace. He’s bringing our troops home. And he’s getting — he’s creating a regional structure of interconnectivity where you’ll have long-term security in the region, and there really is just tremendous opportunity now for better potential.

So there’s still plenty of work to do, but the steps that have been taken, people thought it could not be done. And again, by taking a non-traditional approach, we’ve achieved some great breakthroughs, and we’re going to celebrate that tomorrow — sorry, next week, at the White House.

And it’s really the beginning of what, you know, President Trump has been talking about now from his very first trip overseas, where he went to Saudi Arabia, and then to Israel, and then to Rome to address the three Abrahamic faiths.

You know, you’ve seen him bring people together around shared interests. He’s trying to get people to resolve old conflicts and bringing peace, which obviously is great for America and great for the world. So this is a very, very exciting and historic development. And we’re very happy to talk about that.

So now I’ll take a couple of questions.

Q Hi, Jared. Thanks for doing this call.

MR. KUSHNER: No problem.

Q I’m hoping that I can squeeze in two questions, if it’s not too selfish. The first one is: I just wondered if you could shed some light on the status of efforts to get the Palestinians and Israelis to find some sort of a peace deal and move forward with the effort that you had put forward several months ago. Where does that stand?

And my second question: With regard to talks with the Emirates on the F-35, can you tell us a little bit about where those discussions stand, and particularly shed some light on some of the pushback that’s come from Congress — bipartisan pushback that’s come back on some of the concerns of selling the F-35 to the Emirates, and how are you going to navigate that — that whole situation? Thank you.

MR. KUSHNER: Sure. So with regards to the Palestinians — so again, we put out the most detailed proposal ever for the Palestinians. You know, Israel agreed to a state for the Palestinians, and they agreed to a map, which is something that had never been done before.

In the first meetings with President Abbas, he said, “If you could get Israel to agree to a map, then the rest will be easy to figure out.” We did better than that: We got them to agree to a state with a map and then real granular conditions as to, you know, how operationally the two people can live together. And so we worked very carefully on that proposal, which is what we thought would be a fair place to start from America.

Israel agreed to negotiate on that basis. And then the Palestinians rejected it before it even came out, so before they even knew what was in it. So — and, again, their strategy has been just to avoid getting into the details on this. But I think that there’s a real desire in the region to try to see it resolved and move on.

And so, you know, the offer still remains out there for their leadership. The proposal is on the table. We’ve chosen not to chase them. But the moment that they’re ready to engage, we believe that we have the ability to make a peace deal between them and Israel. But we can’t want them to make peace. We can’t want them to have peace more than they want to have peace.

So when they’re really ready for peace, they’ll call us. They know the terms that we were able to get Israel to agree to negotiate on the basis on. Again, if they think that the lines are drawn in the wrong place, we should come and try to come with a counter proposal, and then we’ll see if we can, you know, bring the two parties together.

But the reality is, is that there’s a very fair offer on the table, and they’ve chosen, right now, not to engage on that. And that’s obviously their prerogative, but the reality is, is they have to make decisions based on what they think is in the best interest of the Palestinian people. And the Palestinian people’s lives are not getting better by their refusing to negotiate.

We put forward an economic vision for the Palestinian people that we believe will double their GDP, create a million new jobs, reduce their unemployment by 50 percent, and really give the Palestinian areas the opportunity to thrive, and their people a real pathway to a better life and dignity and self-determination. And again, they rejected it before it even came out.

And so I do you think the people would like to see this resolved. I think Israel would like to see this resolved. I think what you’re hearing from all of these Arab countries is that they’re tired of waiting for the Palestinian leadership to resolve this.

And, again, they see that Israel is serious about making peace, which is why Israel has, you know, made the concessions that they’ve made and agreed to negotiate on the basis that they have. And I think that it’s really up to the Palestinian leadership.

So they can either just wait and drag this on for a long time, or they can come to the table. And, you know, President Trump has shown that he’s a deal maker, and he believes that he can make a peace deal.

So it’s really up to them, but we’re not going to chase them. But President Trump would like to see this deal get done because I think it would be, you know, important towards bringing the whole region together.

With regard to the F-35: Right now, again, it’s just something that’s being discussed; we’re going through consultations. President Trump has shown that he’s — that he understands Israel’s security probably more than any American president in decades. He’s been a great friend of Israel. He’s made the region safer. He’s brought America and Israel closer than they’ve ever been before. And we’re going to, obviously, work with the QME. And we’ll do what we can do to make sure that we accommodate that circumstance.

But the United Arab Emirates is a great military, you know, partner of America. We work together on a lot of things. They’re right on the border with Iran and have real threats. And I think that there’s a lot of opportunity to be gained by working on this.

So this is something that we’re discussing very seriously. And we’ll see what happens as we go through consultations with the Israelis and with Congress and with other partners.

Next question.

Q Hi, this is Heather (inaudible) from (inaudible) Newspaper. Can the diplomatic relations between Israeli and — Israel and Arab countries put an end to the Israeli annexation of the Palestinian West Bank territory or just (inaudible)?

And another question about King Salman’s call with — (inaudible) the King Salman of Saudi Arabia-Trump call with President Trump. He said that the (inaudible) there are two resolutions to the Palestinian issue through the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which (inaudible) normalization of ties between old Arab countries and Israelis. Are you considering this initiative? Thank you.

MR. KUSHNER: Sure. So, with regards to that: I mean, I say that, you know, with the Kingdom, we are very appreciative that they waived — what they did with their airspace. I think that was a real step towards regional unification. You know, King Salman and the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, they feel very strongly about the Palestinian cause. They would like to see the Palestinians work a fair deal and improve the lives of their people.

But again, they’re going to do what’s in the best interests of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi people and Muslim people from throughout the world as they take that responsibility very seriously.

So, you know, I think that they — he had good chat with the President and, obviously, we’ll see what happens and for how long, you know, they want to do it. But I will say that a lot of people are losing patience with the Palestinian leadership because, you know, right now, they’re just — they seem to be — you know, their people are just losing patience with them.

And then with regards to annexation: Look, you know, these are terms that have been used in public for a long time. I look at this much more simplistically, which is: Look, you have a territorial dispute that basically exists because of — you had, you know, one — Israel had independence in 1948. You had a war, then you had another war in ‘67. You had another war in ’73. All were defensive wars. And obviously, Israel conquered territory. Over years, you’ve had a lot of — you know, Arab leaders use hatred of Israel as a way to deflect from a lot of their shortcomings at home. It’s become, you know, a politicized issue. The Palestinian people were used as pawns. And you have a lot of claims.

Now, the reality is, is I — and I showed a graph when I spoke at the U.N., that — you know, that over the course of the negotiations for the last 25 years, the reason why they never accomplished anything was because both parties were getting what they wanted. Every time a negotiation failed, Israel took more land and the Palestinians got more money from the international community. And the conflict became a cash cow for the leadership. And, unfortunately, some of it trickled down to the people, but not enough.

So the reality is, today, that a lot of this land is inhabited with Israelis. What we did with our plan was we were trying to save the two-state solution because if you — if we kept going with the status quo of what was happening, ultimately, Israel would have eaten up all the land in the West Bank.

And so, right now, you have a situation where there is land that could become a Palestinian state. It is possible to connect it, but the land that Israeli settlers are in right now is land that Israel controls, and the odds of them ever giving it up is unlikely. That’s why the map that we drew was what we thought was a realistic map based on the — we played the ball as it lies, right? We took the realities in the world today and we drew a map based on that, knowing what was achievable and what was not achievable.

So, again, you know, people used the Arab Peace Initiative, and that was a great effort, but it was in 2002. If that would have worked, then we would have made peace a long time ago.

So, you know, we need new points of reference, and that’s what we have right now. And so, you know, again, my fear for the Palestinians is that if they do what they’re very good at doing, which is figure out how to not make a deal and play the victim card, then what’s going to happen is, you know, more time is going to go by and the situation is just going to get worse and worse for them.

They have an amazing opportunity now, and I really hope they have the courage and the wisdom to come to the negotiating table, try to make the best deal for their people, and move forward with (inaudible). You know, people want to focus on positivity and opportunity, not on old conflicts.

Q Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you for doing this. I have two questions. Number one: Did you or did the administration invite Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz and Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi to the White House ceremony, since this is also on the foreign ministry level?

And second question is: Has the administration briefed Congress or invited members of the Democratic Party to the ceremony to ensure that this initiative receive bipartisan support?

MR. KUSHNER: So with regards to the other countries, I mean, both countries will be able to choose their delegations, so that will be up to them. But with — you know, from their respective ministries. But with regards to here in the U.S., this is something that should be bipartisan. We will invite Democrats and Republicans to be here.

And again, I really do hope that America’s — you know, the politics should extend at our borders. And, you know, with something like this, this has been praised by people on both sides of the aisle, and hopefully this is one issue that can stay out of politics.

Making peace is a very important thing, and this makes America safer, it makes our lives stronger, it makes the world a better place, it makes our American troops less at risk. And so this is a great thing, and we hope that Republicans and Democrats will come together to join us in this great celebration.

Great. Well, guys, thank you very much.

END 4:25 P.M. EDT

According to a pre-release excerpt from the Washington Post Bob Woodward writes about a discussion between General James Mattis and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats about a plot to overthrow the elected government of the United States.

[…] “Mattis quietly went to Washington National Cathedral to pray about his concern for the nation’s fate under Trump’s command and, according to Woodward, told Coats, “There may come a time when we have to take collective action” since Trump is “dangerous. He’s unfit.” (read more)

What do you call a conversation between the Defense Secretary and the head of the U.S. intelligence apparatus where they are talking about taking “collective action” to remove an elected President?  That’s called sedition…. A seditious conspiracy.

As alarming as that sounds on its face, this actually aligns with our own previous research into key military leadership, the joint chiefs, and their corrupt intent to overthrow the elected government.  Readers will remember when we noted this very issue after Lt. Col  Alexander Vindman compromised his position yet was not removed by his command structure within the Pentagon.

NOVEMBER 2019 – […] For emphasis let me repeat a current fact that is being entirely overlooked.  Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC does not just lay simply at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; and upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political; the necessary, albeit difficult or perhaps challenging, obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman also resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.  In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances…

The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military is collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

Do you see the issue now?

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication/reality.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of, nor deconstruct the agenda toward, the removal of President Trump.

Mr. President, do I have your attention?

(Full Outline)

The SSCI was at the center of the legislative effort to remove President Trump.  It was from the SSCI that Security Director James Wolfe was instructed to deliver a series of intelligence leaks against President Trump.  The same SSCI who retained the fraudulent premise of the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

Earlier today President Donald Trump held a press availability to announce the list of names he would use to select the next Supreme Court nominee. [List Follows Transcript]  Additionally, President Trump delivered remarks on his response to COVID-19.

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, my fellow Americans. Apart from matters of war and peace, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is the most important decision an American President can make. For this reason, candidates for President owe the American people a specific list of the individuals they consider for the United States Supreme Court.

Four years ago, I announced my first list of highly qualified candidates and promised to fill Justice Scalia’s vacant seat from among — from among those names.

Just days after my inauguration, I kept that promise when I nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch. And, as you know, he has been very spectacular. A year later, I nominated and the Senate confirmed another outstanding justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

By the end of my first term, we will have confirmed a record number of federal judges — over 300 — all of whom will faithfully uphold our Constitution as written.

What has always made America exceptional is our reverence for the impartial rule of law. People have come here from all over the world to pursue the American Dream based on this sacred principle.

Equality under the law is the bedrock of our society. It is the principle that inspired American heroes to abolish slavery and end segregation, secure civil rights, and build the most free and just nation in history.

Unfortunately, there is a growing radical-left movement that rejects the principle of equal treatment under law. If this extreme movement is granted a majority on the Supreme Court, it will fundamentally transform America without a single vote of Congress.

Radical justices will erase the Second Amendment, silence political speech, and require taxpayers to fund extreme late-term abortion. They will give unelected bureaucrats that power to destroy millions of American jobs. They will remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. They will unilaterally declare the death penalty unconstitutional, even for the most depraved mass murderers. They will erase national borders, cripple police departments, and grant new protections to anarchists, rioters, violent criminals, and terrorists.

In the recent past, many of our most treasured freedoms, including religious liberty, free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms, have been saved by a single vote on the United States Supreme Court. Our cherished rights are at risk, including the right to life and our great Second Amendment.

Over the next four years, America’s President will choose hundreds of federal judges, and, in all likelihood, one, two, three, and even four Supreme Court justices. The outcome of these decisions will determine whether we hold fast to our nation’s founding principles or whether they are lost forever.

That is why today I am announcing 20 additions to my original list of candidates for the United States Supreme Court. Should there be another vacancy on the Supreme Court during my presidency, my nominee will come from the names I have shared with the American public, including the original list and these 20 additions.

Joe Biden has refused to release his list, perhaps because he knows the names are so extremely far left that they could never withstand public scrutiny or receive acceptance.

He must release a list of justices for people to properly make a decision as to how they will vote. It is very important that he do so.

My original list of potential justices include many of our nation’s brightest legal minds, such as Bill Pryor, Amy Coney Barrett, and Thomas Hardiman. Outstanding people. Like those distinguished individuals, the 20 additions I am announcing today would be jurists in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

Their names are as follows:

* Bridget Bade of Arizona, judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
* Daniel Cameron of Kentucky, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
* Paul Clement of Virginia, former Solicitor General of the United States
* Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas
* Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
* Stuart Kyle Duncan of Louisiana, judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
* Steven Engel of the District of Columbia, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice
* Noel Francisco, former Solicitor General of the United States
* Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri
* James Ho of Texas, judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
* Gregory Katsas of Virginia, judge on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals
* Barbara Lagoa of Florida, judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
* Christopher Landau of Maryland, United States Ambassador to Mexico
* Carlos Muñiz of Florida, justice on the Supreme Court of Florida
* Martha Pacold of Illinois, judge on the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
* Peter Phipps of Pennsylvania, judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
* Sarah Pitlyk of Missouri, judge on the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
* Allison Jones Rushing of North Carolina, judge on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
* Kate Todd of Virginia, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President
* Lawrence VanDyke of Nevada, judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Every one of these individuals will ensure equal justice, equal treatment, and equal rights for citizens of every race, color, religion, and creed. Together, we will defend our righteous heritage and preserve our magnificent American way of life.

Thank you. God Bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Q Mr. President, why did you intentionally downplay the —

Does anybody have any questions on the judges? Please.

Q I do, sir. Why did —

THE PRESIDENT: Anybody? On the judges? Excuse me. Any questions? They’re outstanding people. Very important decision.

Very important that Joe Biden put up potential nominees. I think it’s a very important thing for our country that he do that.

Okay? Please, go ahead. Do you have a question? Question?

Q Mr. President, have you spoken to these candidates?

Q Mr. President, can you address the concerns from the Woodward book in regards to whether — did you mislead the public by saying that you downplayed the coronavirus and that you repeatedly did that in order to reduce panic? Did you mislead the public?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think if you said “in order to reduce panic,” perhaps that’s so. The fact is, I’m a cheerleader for this country, I love our country, and I don’t want people to be frightened. I don’t want to create panic, as you say. And certainly, I’m not going to drive this country or the world into a frenzy.

We want to show confidence. We want to show strength. We want to show strength as a nation. And that’s what I’ve done. And we’ve done very well. We’ve done well from any standard. You look at our numbers, compared to other countries, other parts of the world. It’s been an amazing job that we’ve done.

I think it’s very sad, in many respects, because the incredible individuals working so hard on it, including our Vice President, they’ve done this great job. They haven’t been acknowledged by the news media — and they should — for the job we’ve done. Whether it’s ventilators — and now, you’ll see very soon, with vaccines and with therapeutics, the job we’ve done has been incredible.

Q But, Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: But we don’t want to — we don’t want to instill panic. We don’t want to jump up and down and start shouting that we have a problem that is a — a tremendous problem — scare everybody.

And I’ll tell you the other thing: We immediately started buying. All over the world, we started buying masks and gowns and everything else. And we don’t want to cause pricing to go up to a level that becomes almost unaffordable. So —

Q But, Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, in that sense — so, in that sense, I agree with it.

Yeah, please.

Q Mr. President, how do you reassure the American public, going forward, that they can trust what you’re saying?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that’s really a big part of trust. We have to have leadership. We have to show leadership. And the last thing you want to do is create a panic in the country. This was a horrible thing. It was sent to us by China. It should not have happened — should never have happened. This is a disgusting, terrible situation that was foisted upon us.

And we have to show — we just don’t want to use — the best word is “panic.” We don’t want to have to show panic. We’re not going to show panic. And that’s exactly what I did. And I was very open — whether it’s to Woodward or anybody else. It’s just another political hit job. But whether it was Woodward or anybody else, you cannot show a sense of panic or you’re going to have bigger problems than you ever had before.

Please.

Q Respectfully, sir, your comments amounted to more than trying to reduce panic, sir. On February 7th, you told Woodward —

THE PRESIDENT: Please, please.

Q — “It’s more deadly than [even] your strenuous flu.” But —

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, he’s — he’s going.

Q But then, publicly, you weren’t saying that at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, please.

Q Look, Mr. President, don’t you think if you were more forthright with the American, more lives could have been saved? Do you take responsibility at all for some of the 200,000 deaths that we’ve had?

THE PRESIDENT: So, I think if we didn’t do what we did, we would have had millions of people die. We closed up our country. We closed it up very, very quickly, very effectively. We did a job. We learned about this horrible disease, along with the rest of the world, which had to learn about it. And then we opened it up. And now we know the vulnerable; we know who it attacks, who it’s so vicious against. And I think we’ve done, from every standpoint, a — a incredible job.

We shouldn’t have lost anybody. Nobody should have lost — China released something that they shouldn’t have been allowed to re- — they should not have released. It came out of China. It went to Europe. It went all over the world. It should have never happened. They could have stopped it. They stopped it from going into the remainder of China. It started in Wuhan, and they stopped it. But they didn’t stop it from coming to our country.

Now, we had to show calm. We had to show — you know, if it was up to you or whoever — I have no idea what he said in the book. And again, it’s a book that — I gave him some quotes and, frankly, we’ll see how the book turned out. I have no idea. You’re asking me questions for the first time.

But, again, the last thing we can show is panic or excitement or fear or anything else. We had to take care of the — we had to take care of the situation we were given.

Now, long before anybody else wanted to do it, I closed our borders to a very heavily infected China. If I didn’t do that, we would have had hundreds of thousands more people die. Dr. Fauci said it. Many people said it. It was a great decision. It was a decision I made and I had to make.

It was a decision that a lot of people thought I was wrong. Nancy Pelosi said I was wrong. Joe Bo- — Biden said I was wrong. They all came back, and they said it was the right decision. And I was way early. That was in January. The end of January, I did that.

So that was a very good thing we did. Otherwise, we would have had hundreds of thousands more. But if we didn’t close the country, we would have been talking about millions of people, instead of the numbers that we have right now.

Go ahead.

Q Mr. President, you mentioned that you were trying to avoid price gouging. But you mentioned to Bob Woodward that you recognized, as this virus spread through the air, in — on February 7th — you didn’t begin Project Air Bridge until March; you didn’t use the Defense Production Act until March; you didn’t start ramping up ventilator production until March.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, you didn’t — you didn’t really think it was going to be to the point where it was. All of a sudden, the world was infected. The entire world was infected. Everyone was scrambling around, looking where to buy facemasks and all of the other things.

We’ve opened up factories. We’ve had tremendous success with facemasks and with shields and with the ventilators. We’re now supplying the rest of the world. We have all the ventilators we can use.

And remember this: The ventilators were very important. Not one person that needed a ventilator didn’t get it. And these are very complex, expensive machines to make. We opened up something like hadn’t been done since the Second World War. We — honestly, we’ve done a — an incredible job.

But we don’t want to run around, screaming, shouting, “Oh, look at this. Look at this.” We have to show leadership. And leadership is all about confidence. And confidence is confidence in our country.

And our people have been great. We’ve been put through a lot by China. By releasing this, by having this come here, we were put through a lot. They could have done something about it, and they chose not to.

I am very honored to have presented to you today a list of 20 incredible people. And we will talk later. I’m sure we’ll be meeting later in the day.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

END 3:59 P.M. EDT

Bridget Bade is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Prior to her appointment in 2019, Judge Bade was a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona and an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. Judge Bade served as a law clerk to Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Bade earned her B.A., summa cum laude, from Arizona State University and her J.D., cum laude, from Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

Daniel Cameron is the 51st Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Before his election in 2019, Attorney General Cameron practiced law with Frost Brown Todd, LLC and served as Legal Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He served as a law clerk to Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Attorney General Cameron received his B.S. from the University of Louisville and his J.D., cum laude, from the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law.

Tom Cotton is a United States Senator for the State of Arkansas. Prior to his election in 2014, Senator Cotton served as a Member in the United States House of Representatives and in the United States Army, rising to the rank of Captain while serving in both Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan with a Provincial Reconstruction Team. Prior to his military service, Senator Cotton practiced law at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Senator Cotton served as a law clerk to Judge Jerry Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He received his A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard College and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Paul Clement is a partner with Kirkland & Ellis, LLP. He previously served as Solicitor General of the United States and has argued over 100 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. He served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Laurence Silberman on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. Clement received his B.S.F.S., summa cum laude, from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service; his M.Phil. from Cambridge University; and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

Ted Cruz is a United States Senator for the State of Texas. Prior to his election in 2012, Senator Cruz was a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP and served as Solicitor General of Texas. Senator Cruz served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge J. Michael Luttig on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Senator Cruz received his A.B., cum laude, from Princeton University and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

Stuart Kyle Duncan is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Before his appointment in 2018, he was a partner at Schaerr Duncan, LLP and General Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Earlier in his career, Judge Duncan served as Solicitor General of Louisiana. Judge Duncan served as a law clerk to Judge John M. Duhé, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Louisiana State University; his J.D. from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University; and his LL.M. from Columbia University Law School.

Steven Engel is the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice. Prior to his appointment in 2017, Mr. Engel was a partner with Dechert, LLP and previously served in the Office of Legal Counsel as Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Engel served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States and to Judge Alex Kozinski on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Engel earned his A.B., summa cum laude, from Harvard College; his M. Phil. from Cambridge University; and his J.D. from Yale Law School.

Noel Francisco is the former Solicitor General of the United States. Prior to his appointment in 2017, Mr. Francisco was a partner at Jones Day and served in the Office of Legal Counsel as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and as Associate Counsel to the President. Mr. Francisco served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge J. Michael Luttig on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Francisco received his B.A., with honors, from the University of Chicago and his J.D., with high honors, from the University of Chicago Law School.

Josh Hawley is a United States Senator for the State of Missouri. Prior to his election in 2018, Senator Hawley served as Attorney General of the State of Missouri, was an Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, and was an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Senator Hawley served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Michael McConnell on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He received his B.A., with honors, from Stanford University and his J.D. from Yale Law School.

James Ho is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Prior to his appointment in 2018, Judge Ho was a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP and served as Solicitor General of Texas. Judge Ho clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Jerry Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He received his B.A., with honors, from Stanford University and his J.D., with high honors, from the University of Chicago Law School.

Gregory Katsas is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Prior to his appointment in 2017, Judge Katsas served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President. He was previously a partner at Jones Day and served in senior positions in the United States Department of Justice, including as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division and Acting Associate Attorney General. Judge Katsas served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, both at the Supreme Court of the United and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and to Judge Edward Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Katsas earned his A.B., cum laude, from Princeton University and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

Barbara Lagoa is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Before her appointment in 2019, Judge Lagoa was a Justice on the Supreme Court of Florida. She also served as District Judge on the Florida Third District Court of Appeal and as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Judge Lagoa earned her B.A., cum laude, from Florida International University and her J.D. from Columbia Law School.

Christopher Landau is the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the United Mexican States. Prior to his appointment in 2019, Ambassador Landau was a partner with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and, before that, headed the Appellate Litigation Practice Group at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP. Ambassador Landau served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, both on the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States. He received his A.B., summa cum laude, from Harvard College and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

Carlos Muñiz is a Justice on the Supreme Court of Florida. Prior to his appointment in 2019, Justice Muñiz served as General Counsel to the United States Department of Education and in various positions in the Florida State government, including as Deputy Attorney General and Chief of Staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Justice Muñiz served as a law clerk to Judge Jose Cabranes on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to Judge Thomas Flannery on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Justice Muñiz received his B.A., with high honors, from the University of Virginia and his J.D. from Yale Law School.

Martha Pacold is a Judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Prior to her appointment in 2019, Judge Pacold served as both Deputy General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury. Earlier in her career, Judge Pacold was a partner at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, LLP and served as Counsel to the Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice. Judge Pacold served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court of the United States, to Judge Jay Bybee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Pacold earned her B.A., with highest distinction, from Indiana University, and her J.D., with honors, from the University of Chicago Law School.

Peter Phipps is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Prior to his elevation in 2019, Judge Phipps served as United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Before taking the bench, Judge Phipps served as Senior Trial Counsel in the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division at the United States Department of Justice. Judge Phipps served as a law clerk to Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He earned both his B.S. and his B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Dayton and his J.D. from Stanford Law School.

Sarah Pitlyk is a Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Prior to her appointment in 2019, Judge Pitlyk was Special Counsel at the Thomas More Society and in private practice at Clark & Sauer, LLC. Ms. Pitlyk served as a law clerk to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She received her B.A., summa cum laude, from Boston College; her M.A.’s from Georgetown University and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium; and her J.D. from Yale Law School.

Allison Jones Rushing is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Prior to her appointment in 2019, Judge Rushing was a partner at Williams & Connolly, LLP. Judge Rushing clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge David Sentelle on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and then-Judge Neil Gorsuch on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Rushing earned her B.A., summa cum laude, from Wake Forest University and her J.D., magna cum laude, from Duke University School of Law.

Kate Todd is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President. Before her appointment in 2019, she served as Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel of the United States Chamber Litigation Center and as a partner at what was previously Wiley Rein & Fielding, LLP. Ms. Todd served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ms. Todd earned her B.A., with distinction, from Cornell University and her J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

Lawrence VanDyke is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Prior to his appointment earlier this year, Judge VanDyke served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice. Earlier in his career, Judge VanDyke served as both Solicitor General of Nevada and Solicitor General of Montana. Judge VanDyke served as a law clerk to Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He earned his B.S., with highest honors, from Montana State University; his B.Th., summa cum laude, from Bear Valley Bible Institute; and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.

♦President Trump’s foreign policy approach brought North and South Korea together away from the table of conflict.  ♦President Trump’s foreign policy approach brought Serbia and Kosovo together away from the table of conflict.  ♦President Trump’s foreign policy rallied the Gulf Cooperation Council to stop Qatar’s support for Islamic extremists via the Muslim Brotherhood. ♦President Trump’s foreign policy brought Turkey and the Kurdish forces together away from war and conflict.  ♦President Trump’s foreign policy created a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed in Syria.  President Trump mediated a cessation of hostilities between India & Pakistan in the Kashmir region. ♦President Trump’s foreign policy brought Israel and the UAE together…

These are just a few examples of Trump’s effective doctrine; previously Moon Jae-in said President Trump deserved the Nobel Peace Prize; and yet leftist jaws are agape as he is nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2021.

(Jerusalem Post) US President Donald Trump was nominated for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in reaching the agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Fox News reported on Wednesday morning.

Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian parliament and head of the Norwegian delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, submitted the nomination.

Tybring-Gjedde had previously submitted a nomination for Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2018 for his Singapore summit, which hosted Kim Jong Un.

“For his merit, I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other Peace Prize nominees,” Tybring-Gjedde told Fox News.

“It is for his contribution for peace between Israel and the UAE,” Tybring-Gjedde, a member of parliament for the right-wing Progress Party, told Reuters. “It is a unique deal.”

In addition to the Israel-UAE deal, the nomination letter to the Nobel Committee cited Trump’s “key role in facilitating contact between conflicting parties… such as the Kashmir border dispute between India and Pakistan, and the conflict between North and South Korea.”  (read more)