Tonight President Donald J. Trump is holds a MAGA/KAG campaign rally at SNHU Arena in Manchester, NH.  The President is scheduled to speak at 7:00pm EST with pre-rally speakers and events ongoing.

UPDATE: Rally Video Added

RSBN Livestream Link – Fox News Livestream Link – GST Livestream Link

.

Chopper pressers are the best pressers.  A confident, cool and assertively diplomatic President Donald Trump holds an impromptu press conference with media as he departs New Jersey for a campaign rally in New Hampshire. [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: So, tremendous retail numbers were announced today, which really is a great indicator of how well our country is doing, how well our economy is doing. Those are real numbers. Walmart announced; others announced. We had some tremendous numbers come out today, which I’m sure you saw. So we’re very happy about that. We’re doing very well.

The economy is incredible. The consumer — probably above all else, the consumer is doing incredibly.

So, go ahead. Any questions?

Q What actions are you prepared to take to avoid a recession if this yield curve thing is really predictive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we’re going to have a very long period of wealth and success. Other countries are doing very poorly. As you know, China is doing very, very poorly. The tariffs have really bitten into China. They haven’t bitten into us at all — except for the reporters that want to make it look that way, but they don’t understand what’s happening.

The tariffs, we’ve taken in close to $60 billion in tariff money. And the consumer has not paid for them. Now, at some point, they may have to pay something. But they understand that. And who really understands that is our great farmer. The farmers of this country really understand it. They know we had to do something about China, and we’re doing something about China.

With that being said, I think we’re having very good discussions with China. They very much want to make a deal. We’ll see what happens. We had a deal and they decided not to make it. Now, I think they would like to have had that opportunity again, because I think they really would —

Q Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: I think they really missed a great opportunity. I think they feel that they missed a great opportunity. But China very much wants to make a deal. We’re talking to them. We’ll see what happens.

Yeah.

Q Why did you feel the need to get involved in the two congresswomen’s trip to Israel?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m only involved from the standpoint of they are very anti-Jewish and they’re very anti-Israel. I think it’s disgraceful, the things they’ve said. You have lists of — and this isn’t just a one-line mistake; what they’ve said about Israel and Jewish people is a horrible thing. And they’ve become the face of the Democrat Party.

So I did absolutely put out a very strong statement. I think, if you look at their language, if you look at what they’ve said, if I ever said it, it would be a — it would be a horrible — it would be a horrible month, to put it mildly.

So the things that they’ve said — Omar, Tlaib — what they’ve said is disgraceful. So I can’t imagine why Israel would let them in. But if they want to let them in, they can. But I can’t imagine why they would do it.

Q Are you worried that a prolonged trade war with China will pitch the economy into a recession?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think the longer the trade war goes on, the weaker China gets and the stronger we get. We’re taking in massive amounts of money. Billions and billions of dollars, Steve, as you know. And I think the longer it goes, the stronger we get. I have a feeling it’s going to go fairly short. I think it’s going to be –

China has lost millions of jobs; you saw that reported today. Thousands of companies are closing in China. And I don’t know, you know, maybe they want to do this for a year. They’d love to have somebody like Biden, who doesn’t know what he’s doing. I mean, I just put a clip where he said, “Oh, we want to build up China. We want to build up China.” Well, they gave us a very strong China. China has taken out over $500 billion a year for many years from our country. And that’s not going to happen anymore.

Q Sir, just —

Q How concerned are you — let me just follow up, sorry.

Q Sure. It’s okay.

Q How concerned are you about a violent crackdown by the Chinese in Hong Kong?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am concerned. I wouldn’t want to see a violent crackdown. I put a little bit of a memo out last night. He’s a man I like a lot. I get along with him very well — President Xi.

And I said that I would be willing to bet that if he sat down with the protesters — a group of representative protesters — I bet he’d work it out in 15 minutes. I bet he’d work it out very quickly. I know it’s not the kind of thing he does, but I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea. I really believe if he sat down — they have a certain little leadership pool. If he sat down with that leadership pool, I’ll bet he’d work something out very quickly.

It really seems like things — it could be worked out pretty easily.

Q Did you speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the congresswomen coming?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t want to comment about who I spoke to, but I think my social media statement pretty well speaks for itself. I feel that they are so anti-Israel, so anti-Jewish. Again, if other people made that statement, there would have been hell to pay. So — but I did speak to people over there.

Yeah.

Q Sir, China has said that they want to retaliate, that they’re going to retaliate because of the tariffs increase that you announced. What’s your response to that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, if they did retaliate — which I don’t think they will do because we’re talking to them and they’re offering things that are very good. I don’t think they’ll retaliate. But if they did, we have the ultimate form of retaliation. I think that they’d have very few jobs left in China, because we’d be able to step it up.

Just so you understand, I’ve been very mild about it. Very, very mild. There’s a long way I can go. And somebody had to take on what was happening with China. We can’t allow China to take, out of our country, $507 billion every year, not including intellectual property theft and so many other things.

So, we’re having very good talks with China. I think things will happen, but we’ll see.

Q If they do retaliate, will you want your team to meet with them in September as planned, or no?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s too — I — look, September, the meeting is still on, as I understand it. But I think, more importantly than September, we’re talking by phone and we’re having very productive talks. They would like to do something, I will tell you that.

And the talk we had a few days ago with my two representatives, nobody knew what was on that talk except for myself, China, and those two people. That was a very good conversation.

Q Do you want Jay Powell to cut interest rates some more?

THE PRESIDENT: Jay Powell should be cutting rates because every country all over the world is cutting, and we want to stay, sort of, even. And I don’t mind if we’re higher — we’re better — we’re a better credit — but we’re way too high. Jay Powell has made a big mistake. He raised them too fast, and he also quantitative tightened. He did quantitative tightening. That was a big mistake — $50 billion a month. And it put us in a position.

And interestingly, even with normalized interest rates, President Obama was paying nothing. And we have a much better economy.

And you have to look at our economy also from the day after my election, because we picked up tremendous steam the day after the election. That’s not attributable to President Obama. They only did that because of us.

So when somebody says “from January 20th,” it’s not from January 20th; it’s from November 9th, the day after the election. We picked up. The fact that I won lifted our economy greatly. And if I didn’t win, it would go down. And, frankly, if, for some reason that happened in the 2020 election, you’ll see this economy go down the tubes. I will tell you that right now.

Q Mr. President, do you have any idea on when China’s going to follow through on their (inaudible) and crack down on fentanyl?

THE PRESIDENT: They want to follow through very quickly. This was part of the conversation that we had. They had a special representative actually come over and talk to us — a different group — and a message to me, a very strong message to me. They want to start doing that very quickly. I’ll be honest, I’m not there yet.

Q Did you — did you tell Israel to —

THE PRESIDENT: It’s not China; I’m not there yet. We’ll see what happens.

I do want to — I really would like to see China, in a humane way, solve the problem in Hong Kong — humanely solve the problem in Hong Kong. And I think they could do it very quickly. You know, I said yesterday: I really have a lot of confidence in President Xi. I know that if he sat down with their representatives, I have no doubt he would solve that problem quickly.

Q In your conversations with people connected to Israel, did you encourage them to reject the (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don’t encourage or discourage. I think that if Israel allowed them to come in for the normal reasons, other than those reasons, I really believe that it would be a terrible thing for Israel. I think it would show a terrible sign.

They want to do boycotts. They said horrible things about Jewish people. They said horrible things about Israel and Israelis. I think it would be terrible thing, frankly, for Israel to let these two people, who speak so badly about Israel, come in.

And they have become, amazingly, the face of the Democrats. The Democrats don’t want to do anything to condemn them. If they were — if this were 10 years ago, or if this were maybe a different time or different people or whatever, they would be condemned for the things they’ve said. They’ve said some of the worst things I’ve ever heard said about Israel. So how can Israel say, “Oh, welcome”? I don’t think it would be a good thing for Israel.

Q Mr. President, do you think that Steve King needs to resign?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know the situation with Steve King. It looked like — I read a statement that supposedly he made. I haven’t been briefed on it, but certainly it wasn’t a very good statement.

Q So, you’re going to go to the G7 pretty soon, and I think you’re going to meet with Boris Johnson. Are you going to have some sort of declaration about the intent to seal a trade deal with him, with the Britons?

THE PRESIDENT: So, we’re dealing with the UK on trade and a trade deal, and we’re going to have a great deal made. I’ve been dealing with Boris Johnson. I just spoke to him yesterday. I’ll speak to him again. He and I are very much aligned. We feel very good about each other. I think we’ll make a fantastic and big trade deal with the UK.

Actually, we should do much more business than we’re doing with the UK. You know, it’s a — they’re probably — I don’t want to say our “closest,” because I don’t want to insult other people, but certainly — or countries — but certainly they’re one of our closest allies anywhere in the world. And we’re going to have a fantastic relationship with UK. And we’re going to have a great trade deal with UK. And that’s moving along rapidly.

Q Any other goals for the G7, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I think just relationship. We’ll see what happens. We have a lot of things to discuss, a lot of things to discuss.

Q Is Corey going to announce tonight?

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t know. Corey Lewandowski, I think, would be terrific if he ran, but I don’t know that he’s going to run. I spoke to him about it a week ago. Frankly, I think it’s something he’d like to do, but I don’t know that he’s going to do it. I think he’d be very good. He loves New Hampshire. He loves our country. If he did it, I think he’d be very formidable.

Q What executive actions are you prepared to take on guns? Executive actions on guns, are you prepared —

THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to look at that very closely, and we’re looking at the whole gun situation.

I do want people to remember the words “mental illness.” These people are mentally ill and nobody talks about that. But these are mentally ill people, and people have to start thinking about it.

I think we have to start building institutions again because, you know, if you look at the ‘60s and ‘70s, so many of these institutions were closed. And the people were just allowed to go onto the streets. And that was a terrible thing for our country. They closed them; cities couldn’t afford them and they closed them. I mean, I can tell you: In New York, they closed a lot of them. And the people went out; they went out onto the streets. And it’s a terrible thing. But a lot of our conversation has to do with the fact that we have to open up institutions. We can’t let these people be on the streets.

So, we have a tremendous crowd in New Hampshire. It’s — all over the place, everybody is saying, “Wow.” Our competitor has virtually no crowd. I don’t know what that means. I assume that’s a poll of some kind. But I think we’re going to do very well in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire should have been won last time, except we had a lot of people come in at the last moment, which was a rather strange situation. Thousands and thousands of people coming in from locations unknown. But I knew where their location was.

Q Where (inaudible)?

THE PRESIDENT: But I think we’re going to have — I think we’re going to have a tremendous success in New Hampshire. These are great people. And the relationship is very good.

Q Do you still plan to commute the sentence of Blagojevich?

THE PRESIDENT: We’re looking at it. I feel very badly. I think he was very harshly sentenced, but we’re looking at it very strongly. People feel very strongly about that. I floated it and I wanted to see where the Democrats stood, where the Republicans stood.

People feel very strongly about Rod Blagojevich and his sentence. He’s been in there for seven and a half years; that’s a long time. And what he did was terrible, but it’s a long time. It’s a long time.

Q Are you pushing Mitch McConnell on background checks?

THE PRESIDENT: I’ve been dealing with Mitch McConnell. He’s a man who we have had tremendous success with judges and judicial appointments. We’re going to be up to 179 federal judges within the next two months. Nobody would have believed that’s possible. And that was because President Obama was unable to get them completed. So I inherited about 138 empty seats. Nobody can believe it. And we will have them almost all filled with tremendous judges and tremendously talented, smart people. They’ll be filled within two months.

So I have 179 judges and 2 Supreme Court justices. That’s something that nobody would have ever thought possible. I want to thank, very much, President Obama for that.

Q But I was asking about background checks for gun owners, for gun purchasers.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, we do. I’ve been speaking to Mitch about that. I’ve been speaking to everybody about it. And we don’t want to see crazy people owning guns. But I also want to remember that mental illness is something nobody wants to talk about. These people are mentally ill and we have to study that also. Because, you know, it’s them; they pull the trigger. The gun doesn’t pull the trigger. They pull the trigger. So we have to look very seriously at mental illness, and we’re doing that at a level that hasn’t been done before. Okay?

Q (Inaudible) speaking with, Mr. President, besides the Senate Majority Leader and Pat Toomey? Is there anyone else who you’re talking to?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Yeah. I’m speaking to many Republicans. And I’ll tell you, it’s — it’s been pretty — an amazing experience. They want to see something happen. And basically, it’s very simple, they don’t want to have insane people, dangerous people, really bad people having guns. Republicans agree with me on that, I think, you know, I would say, pretty much uniformly.

Q Do you think this will be easy to do when the Senate comes back? Or how (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m afraid that if we came up with a good bill, I think the Democrats then might up it, and then do things that can’t be done and that the public wouldn’t want done. I hope that wouldn’t happen, but that’s happened in the past. You understand.

Q Do you support universal background checks?

THE PRESIDENT: I support strong, meaningful background checks, where people that should not have guns, people that are insane, people that are mentally ill, people that are bad, bad people — like this guy in Philadelphia, who has been arrested numerous times; he’s a bad guy — where people like that would not have guns. And, frankly, people like that should be locked up. He shouldn’t have even been on the streets.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Q Did you talk to Xi directly? Was that who you talked to in China?

THE PRESIDENT: I will speak to him. We have a call scheduled soon — President Xi. We’ll be speaking to him very soon. I really believe he can work it out. I know him well. If he wants to, he can work that out in a very humane fashion. He can work something that everybody is happy. Thank you.

END 5:23 P.M. EDT

After federal authorities raided seven chicken processing facilities in Mississippi last week evidence is now surfacing (within probable cause affidavits – full pdf below) of willful and intentional illegal hiring practices.  But don’t look for all the employers to be prosecuted.

The Washington Post has an excellent outline of the seven facilities citing dozens of instances where evidence shows each company knew they were hiring people who were not legally eligible for work.

In a surprising number of cases the illegal employees were arrested by Border Patrol in California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona and released on electronic-monitoring programs, including ankle bracelets, to await court dates.

According to the affidavits federal authorities tracked the GPS locators on some of the employees and found they were illegally working in all of the facilities.  During interviews with the workers they stated how friends and family members in Mexico and Guatemala told them where to go for work in Mississippi.

Apparently the ability to gain illegal employment at the Mississippi facilities, and specifically where to go to get hired, was widely known throughout the home communities of the migrants.  After they were detained at the U.S. border, they were processed, received monitors, allowed to leave, and then immediately went to Mississippi to begin work.

They were not allowed to work legally in the United States while wearing the ankle-bracelets and monitored.  However, they just went to the chicken plants because that was all just part of the anticipated program.

The hiring examples include the customary use of multiple aliases, forged paperwork and ID’s, and using social security numbers of deceased people.

The Washington Post article is really quite remarkable:  SEE HERE.

[Excerpt] … The records detail how ICE linked undocumented immigrants to the companies. Investigators found some employees via GPS coordinates at plants operated by all five companies. The employees previously had been arrested by Border Patrol agents in California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona and released on electronic-monitoring programs, including ankle bracelets, to await court dates. In each case cited, the individuals listed addresses in small towns in central Mississippi where they could be located.

An undocumented Mexican woman working in a Peco Foods plant in Bay Springs, Miss., told immigration officials that she had come to the state because people in Mexico had told her that jobs were available at the chicken plants there.

In cases cited in the affidavits, people on ICE’s electronic-monitoring programs were not authorized to work. But according to the affidavits, dozens of employees in such programs were found working at the seven chicken plants in 2018 and 2019. One successful job applicant was told by a supervisor during her interview that she would need to keep her ankle monitor charged while she worked. (read more)

Now, at first review it might sound like the plant employers would be in big trouble; however, buried deep in the article is this statement from one of the employers (Koch Foods), that everyone should pay attention to:

Koch spokesman Jim Gilliland told The Post that Koch Foods risked violating federal law that bans discrimination on the basis of national origin for requesting documents beyond what an applicant provides, if those materials appear authentic.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that what Mr. Gilliland says there is absolutely accurate.  There are two sets of laws in conflict with each-other; and you can be sued, and/or fined, by the United States Department of Labor and/or the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division for not hiring illegal aliens.

If you question the authenticity of any applicants identity; and that applicant is one of a legally protected category (think “ethnicity” or “origin”); and the employers authenticity challenge results in a “disparate impact” of non-eligibility for employment – as determined by ethnicity (Latino); then you are in violation of U.S. labor laws.  This happens regardless of it being unlawful to hire illegal aliens.

If you challenge the presented documents, and all the outcomes of those challenges result in non-eligibility of Hispanics as a greater percentage than non-Hispanics, you are violating employment law under the DOJ (Civil Rights Division) definition of “disparate impact.”   In this example, and it is common (believe me), additional employment eligibility checks due to suspicions of false ID’s, is unlawful and legally risky.

It’s also completely stupid.

.

If you needed any empirical evidence to prove the doomsday proclamations by the financial pundits are false claims, just look at the July consumer spending results. July spending more than doubled expectations.

July results were +0.7 percent, against the economic forecast of +.03 percent.   Consumer spending makes up over two-thirds of the U.S. GDP and overall economy. Doesn’t exactly sound like Main Street is on the precipice of a recession. Oh my.

Average wage growth remains +3.5% year-over-year.  The growth of overall income for American workers exceeds +5.4 percent year-over-year.  Unemployment is a low 3.6%and U.S. consumer inflation remains low at 1.4 percent.  Meaning: the middle-class has more disposable income to save or SPEND; and that’s what is happening….

• Reminder #1: Consumer spending is two-thirds of the U.S. economy.
• Reminder #2: We consume more than 80 percent of our own production (products created in USA).  We do not rely on exports.
• Reminder #3: Because of #1 and #2, the “Main Street” U.S. economy is self sustaining -much stronger- and more protected from the negative impacts on the global economy.
• Reminder #4: Who/What is at risk from global contraction? The Wall Street economy (compromised primarily of multinationals).  What is not at risk, the Main St economy.
• Reminder #5:  Because of #3 and #4, Wall Street can drop while Main Street thrives.

This is the fundamental disconnect. These Main Street results, this dynamic, is the space between two economic engines that CTH has been describing for three years.  The investment class on Wall Street can go through pain, while the middle-class on Main Street thrive.  We are in the space between.

Wall Street Journal: WASHINGTON—American shoppers gave the U.S. economy a solid boost in July, a counter to weakness in the manufacturing sector and Wall Street jitters about faltering growth.

Retail sales, a measure of purchases at stores, restaurants and online, climbed a seasonally adjusted 0.7% in July from a month earlier, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

White House trade and manufacturing policy advisor Peter Navarro appears on Fox News to discuss the status of the U.S-China trade negotiations and the reason for a USTR delay on some product tariffs.

Peter Navarro confirms what we noted from the office of USTR Robert Lighthizer yesterday.  On December 15th “the tariffs will go on.”   While the statement flies over the head of Stuart Varney, Navarro confirms the “next step” process that Lighthizer implied.

.

More below

The U.S. stock market continues reacting to an unusual dynamic. 50% of all companies manufacturing in China are U.S. owned multinational corporations. Those companies don’t want tariffs to succeed in disrupting their supply chain. As a consequence those Wall St. Corps also don’t want lower U.S. Fed interest rates designed to combat China’s currency devaluation.

Normally Wall St. would like lower rates (cheap money), but in this dynamic the U.S. multinationals are against it. Wall Street is schizophrenic. Domestic U.S. companies benefit from the lower rates; however, now, lower rates are adverse to the interests of the multinational companies.

It was Albert Einstein who aptly stated:

“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”

The same basic principle applies to those who are trying to understand and evaluate current economic activity yet failing to disengage themselves from their historic economic frames of reference.

Minds who are framed around thirty years of financial/monetary political policy; intended to influence the U.S. economy and created by vested interests who were building out the legislative priorities based on Wall Streets’ best interests; will struggle to understand the new landscape which is entirely formulated to benefit Main Street.

There are two economic engines: Wall Street and Main Street.

The two economic engines are divergent and detached. Time (30+ years), along with monetary focus only on Wall Street interests (multinationals), pushed those two economic engines further apart. The same monetary policies which worked in the immediate past will not work in the immediate future.

We are now in the economic space between both engines. The traditional cause and effect (Fed) is now uncoupled.  The administrators of the economy are perplexed; this is unfamiliar terrain.

The exact same areas of the country which have gone through three decades of economic contraction are now seeing economic expansion and revitalization. The Fed policy which influences Wall Street was not, and is not, domestic centric. The fed policy was corporate driven monetary policy and globalist in influence.

Until the two economies gain parity in value – any fed activity, taken as a consequence to their familiar traditional measurements (interest rates etc.), will have minimal to negligible impact on Main Street.

The situation in Hong Kong is a geopolitical dynamic that will likely become much more volatile in the next few weeks, months and/or years.  One constant in an ever-changing universe is how the UniParty in DC will attempt to drag the U.S. into the issues.

First, Hong Kong is China.  Whether a generation of people look back with regret to the time when Great Britain ceded the territory to Beijing is irrelevant.  China has, and will have, full control over Hong Kong; and that’s the way it is.  This will not be reversed.

Any effort for the people within Hong Kong to reverse the situation and escape the clutches of oppressive communism while retaining their liberty will only lead to massive bloodshed.

Unfortunately for Hong Kong, as President Trump decouples the U.S. economy from the duplicitous communist Chinese enterprise, Beijing will grasp more control over the heavily Western-influenced economic strata in/around Hong Kong.

Stand back and look at the bigger picture.  President Trump has neutralized, essentially made irrelevant, Beijing’s use of their proxy province, North Korea.  President Trump has embraced Kim Jong-un, not as much out of a position of warmth – but rather as a tactic to block China from weaponizing the DPRK as leverage during the U.S-China trade confrontation.

Beijing still uses their influence to shoot rockets, test missiles etc and president Trump ignores it now.  Why?  Because North Korea already has nuclear missiles; they’re the same nuclear missiles China has… and it is silly now to think China will remove their nuclear missiles to gain an economic benefit.

If U.S. policy isn’t trying to remove nuclear weapons from China, then why would U.S. policy try to remove nuclear weapons from the DPRK.?  They’re the same nukes.

Losing their DPRK leverage, and understanding Beijing has no direct tools to defeat the U.S. in an direct economic confrontation, means China will look elsewhere. That’s where Hong Kong comes into play.

[Always remember, despite the U.S. tariffs on China, there are no tariffs on Hong Kong]

Do we feel sympathy watching a once free society slip into the grips of an oppressive and totalitarian system now ruled by a communist dictator for life in Chairman Xi Jinping?  Sure we do.  But they made these choices decades ago… now they have the consequences.

If Hong Kong tries to resist Beijing, they will be crushed.  Hundreds more will be arrested and disappeared.  Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, will be killed.  There is already a ongoing flight of wealth out of Hong Kong as the smart and wealthy position their assets overseas to survive the arrival of Beijing’s storm troopers.

The future for Hong Kong is dark.  It is not going to end in anything resembling what exists today.  Hong Kong will be Beijing 2.0, and will be entirely dominated by Chinese authoritarian rule.  The difference in 2019 is the speed at which it is happening.

Things are speeding up now in direct proportion to the severity of the U.S. decoupling our economy from China.   As the Chinese economy weakens, Beijing will get more desperate.

Many voices around President Trump will cry out for intervention.  The UniParty will demand intervention and decry President Trump’s instinct to stay away from the self-made crisis.

It is not our issue; and engaging in Hong Kong only opens up another pathway for China to play the duplicitous leverage game…. Beijing will play the “we’ll spare, delay, or dilute the Hong Kong absorption, if you agree to our trade terms” game. [lies, lies, lies]

President Trump needs to engage with China and Hong Kong as one nation, under one rule, with one motive and intent.   Trying to win a Chinese trade conflict while parsing the economy of China from the economy of Hong Kong, is like trying to parse the nukes in China from the nukes in North Korea.

Hong Kong is lost.  Hong Kong belongs to China.  Thousands of Hong Kongers will be killed or disappeared into camps as Beijing absorbs the region.  The U.S. cannot continue to engage globally in an effort to protect nations from the consequences of their own decisions.

If Great Britain wants to send an armada of battle ships to warn Beijing against aggression with Hong Kong, then we should support.  Wait… wha?  Oh, Great Britain no longer has a Navy because the high-minded EU collective wanted to hold hands and sing ‘we-are-the-world’ instead of planning to defend its interests for the past twenty years….  I digress.

Hong Kong is not our issue.

The CIA will try to make it our issue.  The State Department will try to make it our issue.  The UniParty in DC will try to make it our issue.  John Bolton will try to make it our issue. Activists in Hong Kong will try to make it our issue.  All of the far-left globalists will try to make it our issue….  Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney will try to make it our issue; but it’s not our issue.

We pray for peace and send our prayers, but we cannot succeed in the larger economic confrontation with cunning China if we attempt to ignore the direct connective tissue between Beijing and Hong Kong.

Instead, start applying the Chinese tariffs on Hong Kong as soon as Beijing tanks arrive.

Tough love.

Chopper pressers are the best pressers.  Earlier today President Trump delivered remarks and held and impromptu press conference from the airport in Morristown, NJ, prior to departing for Pennsylvania.  [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: The stock market continues to do very well. We have very, very strong numbers. We have a lot of artificial numbers from other countries because they’re all devaluing their currencies. They’re really doing things that aren’t very good for their countries, in my opinion. But, short term, it’s very good for their countries. Long term, possibly not.

And we’re not following suit. We have a Fed that decides not to cut interest rates, which is a very bad thing. Because, right now, we have to follow suit; we should be following suit. But we have a very powerful country, a very strong economic and military country. We’ve never been better. The stock market is way up today for various reasons, including tariffs.

I just see where we’ve collected close to $59 billion in tariffs so far. And, in my opinion, the consumer has not paid for it because of the devaluation by China. They devalued and they pumped a lot of money into their system. So, it’s really been an amazing — it’s been an amazing period of time.

Yeah.

Q Why did you make the decision on the tariffs, to delay the implementation of the tariffs?

THE PRESIDENT: Only to help, I think, a lot of different groups of people. And we had a very good talk yesterday with China — a very, very productive call. I think they want to do something. I think they’d like to do something dramatic. I was not sure whether or not they wanted to wait until a Democrat has a chance to get in. Hopefully that’s not going to happen because the economy would go to hell in a handbasket very fast.

But they really would like to make a deal. The call itself was very productive. I’m not sure if it was the tariffs or the call, but the call was very productive. Again, they’ve said this many times; they’ve said they’re going to buy farm products. So far, they’ve disappointed me with the truth. They haven’t been truthful, or, let’s say, they’ve certainly delayed the decision. But it’s their intention to buy a lot of farm product.

And we did — we had a very good call with China. I mean, they would really like to do — as you know, they have a problem in Hong Kong, but they would like very much to do something.

Q Would you consider moving the tariffs, even? Delaying them even further, past December 15?

THE PRESIDENT: No, we’re doing this for Christmas season, just in case some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers, which, so far, they’ve had virtually none. The only impact has been that we’ve collected almost $60 billion from China — compliments of China. But just in case they might have an impact on people, what we’ve done is we’ve delayed it so that they won’t be relevant for the Christmas shopping season.

Q Mr. President, can you please explain your decision to retweet that comment about Jeffrey Epstein and the —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, he’s a very highly respected, conservative pundit. He’s a big Trump fan. That was a retweet. That wasn’t from me; that was from him. But he’s a man who has half a million followers. A lot of followers. And he’s respected.

And, as you know, Bill Barr wants to do an entire investigation of the whole Epstein matter, what happened. He’s been going on for a long — that’s been going on for a long time, the whole Epstein episode. And I know it’s under investigation by Attorney General Barr, and I’m sure he’s going to be handling it.

The retweet, which is what it was — it was a retweet — was from somebody that’s a very respected, conservative pundit. So I think that was fine.

Yeah.

Q But is it appropriate for you to be spreading that kind of conspiracy theory? I presume you don’t know that that’s true.

THE PRESIDENT: No, basically what we’re saying is we want an investigation. I want a full investigation, and that’s what I absolutely am demanding. That’s what our Attorney General — our great Attorney General — is doing. He’s doing a full investigation.

Q Are you concerned about what you’re seeing in Hong Kong? Do you want China to exercise restraint?

THE PRESIDENT: The Hong Kong thing is a very tough situation. Very tough. We’ll see what happens. But I’m sure it’ll work out. I hope it works out for everybody, including China, by the way. I hope it works out for everybody.

Q Have you seen the gathering of military troops, apparently close to protestors? And there’s worries about that.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, it’s a very tricky situation. I think it’ll work out. And I hope it works out for liberty. I hope it works out for everybody, including China. I hope it works out peacefully. I hope nobody gets hurts. I hope nobody gets killed.

Q Mr. President, are you more optimistic now that there’s a chance of getting a deal between China on trade?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve always been optimistic. My only question is whether or not they were willing to wait and take the chance on winning the election and deal with somebody who’s weak and ineffective and doesn’t know what he’s doing or she’s doing, like they’ve had in the past.

This should have been done 25 years ago. It should have been done 10 years ago or 5 years ago. This should have been done a long time ago. This should have been done by Biden and Obama. China is taking out $500 billion a year, and much more than that, if you include the theft of intellectual property. What I’m doing now should have been done many years ago.

Q On another issue: Ken Cuccinelli today said, on NPR, that maybe there ought to be a different poem on the Statue of Liberty that says immigrants who come can stand up for themselves and take care of themselves. Do you think that should be changed?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t think it’s fair to have the American taxpayer — you know, it’s about “America First.” I don’t think it’s fair to have the American taxpayer paying for people to come into the United States.

So what we’ve done is institute what took place many, many years ago — at our founding, virtually. But we are just reinstituting it. And I think it’s long overdue.

I am tired of seeing our taxpayer paying for people to come into the country and immediately go onto welfare and various other things. So I think we’re doing it right.

Q Mr. President, you tweeted about a word that Chris Cuomo found racially offensive. Even Sean Hannity defended him. Is that appropriate for you to tweet about that?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that what Chris Cuomo did was horrible. His language was horrible. He looked like a total, out-of-control animal. He lost it. And, frankly, I don’t think anybody should defend him because he spews lies every night. So I don’t know why anybody would defend him. But Chris Cuomo was out of control. I watched it. I thought it was terrible.

So I don’t know who’s defending him. Maybe they didn’t see it. Maybe they haven’t gotten a full picture. But I think anybody that would have seen Chris Cuomo would have said that was a disgrace. You’ve never seen me do that.

Q But you wound up tweeting in response to it, saying that maybe he should be flagged by a “red flag” list. Doesn’t that sort of undermine the whole argument that’s going on right now and the push for that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think Chris Cuomo was so out of control that I would not have wanted to see a weapon in his hand. I guess his fist is not a weapon or he would have done something. You know, he talked about it but he didn’t do anything.

But I think Chris Cuomo was very much out of control, actually.

Q Mr. President, Anthony Scaramucci today is calling on Republicans to challenge you in 2020, saying that you’ve “gone off the rails.” Do you have a response?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Anthony was a guy who worked for me, who really didn’t have a clue. He worked for 11 days. He made terrible statements and gestures and everything to people that worked in the office. I think you’ve heard Mercedes Schlapp talk about it in great detail.

Anthony didn’t support me at the beginning; he was with somebody else and then he went to somebody else. And he only supported me after it was a foregone conclusion that I was going to win.

I’m not a fan of Anthony. I haven’t been for a long time. I think Anthony is really somebody that’s very much out of control. And he doesn’t have what it takes. I mean, he really doesn’t.

He wanted to come back into the administration for the last five months, begging me to come back in. I said, “Anthony, I can’t take you in. I’m sorry.” He called so much. He’s a nervous, neurotic wreck. He called so much, and I said, “Anthony, I’m sorry. I can’t do that. I can’t take you in.” And I said, “You got to stop all these phone calls. Too many calls, Anthony.” And I wouldn’t take his call. And lo and behold, now he feels differently.

But Anthony is upset because he wanted certain things. The main thing he wanted was to come back into the administration. And as you remember better than I do, he was a disaster for the 11 days.

Q Mr. President, the factory you’re going to today is going to make plastics. You must be aware of all the reports that say the world is awash in plastic and the last thing it needs is more plastic. What’s your feeling on that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have tremendous plastics coming over from Asia, from China, and various others. It’s not our plastic. It’s plastics that’s floating over in the ocean and the various oceans from other places.

No, plastics are fine, but you have to know what to do with them. But other countries are not taking care of their plastic use and they haven’t for a long time. And the plastic that we’re getting is floating across the ocean from other places, including China.

Q How is the progress going on background checks? Are you convinced that Mitch McConnell is going to put that up for a vote?

THE PRESIDENT: I am convinced that Mitch wants to do something. I’ve spoken to Mitch McConnell. He’s a good man. He wants to do something. He wants to do it, I think, very strongly. He wants to do background checks, and I do too, and I think a lot of Republicans do. I don’t know, frankly, that the Democrats will get us there.

But I spoke with Chris Murphy, Senator. We had a very good conversation. We’ll see what happens. But I believe that Mitch — and I can tell you, from my standpoint, I would like to see meaningful background checks. And I think something will happen.

Look, it’s very simple: There is nobody more pro-Second Amendment than Donald Trump, but I don’t want guns in the hands of a lunatic or a maniac. And I think if we do proper background checks, we can prevent that.

Q And back on the tweet question: Do you really think the Clintons are involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s death?

THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I know he was on his plane 27 times and he said he was on the plane 4 times. But when they checked the plane logs, Bill Clinton — who was a very good friend of Epstein — he was on the plane about 27 or 28 times. So why did he say “four times”?

And then the question you have to ask is: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? Because Epstein had an island that was not a good place, as I understand it. And I was never there. So you have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That’s the question. If you find that out, you’re going to know a lot.

Thank you very much everybody.

END 12:03 P.M. EDT

President Trump travels to Pittsburgh, PA, today to tour the Shell cracker plant and deliver remarks on “America’s Energy Dominance and Manufacturing Revival.” The anticipated start time is 2:10pm EST. [Update – Video Added]

The GST Livestream is active now – all others will activate closer to speech time.

White House Livestream – Fox News Link – RSBN Link – GST Link (active now)

.

.

.