The U.S. multinationals on Wall Street do not want the USMCA to pass because they don’t want President Trump to have leverage that allows him to continue the fight against China and the EU. It is a simple dynamic, USMCA ratification makes the Wall Street prior investments in China worth less.
In all of these efforts U.S. multinational corporations, big companies on Wall St, are heavily opposed to President Trump because they have invested in those overseas operations. Those companies facilitated the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
Remember, in 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that non-union members cannot be forced to pay for union representation.
That decision led to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka declaring supportin 2019 for illegal aliens having rights to U.S. jobs and collective bargaining.
There is also now a clear alignment between Wall Street multinationals, and democrats like Nancy Pelosi. Wall Street’s ability to pay Pelosi and political leadership to protect their multinational interests; in combination with corporate promises of funding to Pelosi’s party; has created the unholy alliance of united interests.
It is a political strategy and calculation for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to attempt to sink the U.S. Main Street economy. Weakening Trump’s China confrontation, blocking the USMCA, and impeding a trade agreement between the U.S. and U.K. are part of that calculation.
(Via CNBC) […] Pelosi and Neal’s meeting with Trump’s trade representative follows talks with a key labor leader earlier this week. After a Tuesday meeting with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Pelosi said, “we can reach an agreement on USMCA when the Trade Representative makes the new NAFTA agreement enforceable for America’s workers.”
Their meeting with Trumka came a day after the labor leader said “we are not there yet” on an agreement. He added that “we cannot and support any deal that does not deliver for working people.”
The Trump administration needs to submit ratifying legislation to Congress for the House to move forward with approving the agreement. Once the White House submits text, it starts a 90-day window to approve USMCA.
Mexico has ratified the agreement, while Canada has not.
Labor groups and Democrats have worried the agreement will not go far enough to boost wages in Mexico and stop U.S. companies from moving jobs south. (read more)
At 8:15pm last evening Washington Post journalist Devlin Barrett posted a supportive article for the CNN (Manu Raju) news exclusive that outlined an “FBI Official” who was under criminal investigation as an outcome of the inspector general review of FISA.
The original WaPo article by Devlin Barrettnoted the FBI official was actually a “line-level” lawyer who worked “under FBI Agent Peter Strzok.”
At 12:15am, the WaPo article was significantly edited, two more journalists (Ellen Nakashima and Matt Zapotosky) were added to the byline. Unfortunately, no explanation or notation of the changes were given.
However, that said, the edits help to identify the identity of the FBI lawyer. The updated article removed the references to Peter Strzok, and identifies the line-level lawyer thus:
[…] The person under scrutiny is a low-level FBI lawyer who has since been forced out of the agency, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public.
The employee was forced out of the FBI after the incident was discovered, two U.S. officials said. Horowitz found that the employee erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim, they said. (link)
If you have followed the case closely, the intentional removal of Peter Strzok in combination with the explanation of the lawyer’s FISA responsibilities; and in combination with prior reporting of FBI lawyer 2; it seems pretty obvious the line-level lawyer was Kevin Clinesmith.
If the WaPo article had added all the detail and left in how the line-level attorney worked for Peter Strzok everyone would have known who it was. Hence they put in more details about his activity but removed the Strzok reference.
Kevin Clinesmith was one of the key FBI small group members on the original Clinton investigation known as the “mid-year exam”, or in text messages the “MYE”.
Within the MYE Clinesmith was one of the key legal staff working with Peter Strzok. Clinesmith was lawyer #2 for Strzok who eventually transferred to the subsequent Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Clinesmith was also previously reported to be having an intimate relationship with another member of the FBI team, Sally Moyer, though that is uncertain. [Tashina “Tash” Guahar was also a key legal figure on the Main Justice side of the MYE team.]
Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel).
Ms. Moyer was responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications.
When the MYE investigation finished, the Carter Page FISA construction is where Kevin Clinesmith and Sally Moyer come together in their next assignment, the FBI investigation of Trump.
Additionally, Tashina “Tash” Guahar was then Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) with responsibility over the assembly of FISA applications in Main Justice. In essence the FISA lawyer.
[Related Sidebar: Current ICIG Michael Atkinson, the IG who modified the whistle-blower forms and allowed a hearsay CIA whistle-blower complaint, was the chief legal counsel for the head of the DOJ-NSD at the time all of this was happening. Yeah, sketchy]
This is what it looks like put together:
In the Carter Page FISA application FBI line-level lawyer Clinesmith is responsible for the underlying evidence. FBI unit chief lawyer Sally Moyer is responsible for the citations (the “woods file”) that identifies the underlying evidence. And then DOJ Tashina Guahar is responsible for the final application assembly; then it goes off to the top level DOJ and FBI superiors for signatures and submission to the court.
The WaPo article cites Clinesmith: “erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim.” That “back up citation” would be where his girlfriend Sally Moyer puts the Woods File citation.
This FISA assembly process: Clinesmith to Moyer to Guahar, took place in October 2016.
Almost three years later, Inspector General Michael Horowitz finishes his investigation and notes the issue with the documentation that supports the Woods File requirement.
This is part of Horowitz draft report as delivered to Attorney General Barr in September. According to the Washington Post Clinesmith is “forced to resign.” Sally Moyer has unknown status at the FBI. However, Tashina Guahar was still at DOJ-NSD.
Shortly after IG Horowitz delivers the rough draft of his investigation to AG Bill Barr, Tash Guahar quietly leaves the DOJ-NSD {Go Deep} and is reported to have taken a job with Boeing Corp. With this hindsight the reason for Guahar’s mysterious exit makes sense.
According to both the CNN and Washington Post report, the issue with the underlying ‘Woods File’ evidence has led U.S. Attorney John Durham to conduct a criminal investigation. That investigation would include Kevin Clinesmith, the “line-level lawyer”.
[…] That conduct did not alter Horowitz’s finding that the surveillance application of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had aproper legal and factual basis, the officials said.
That sounds like a white-wash outcome; mistakes were made, move along etc. etc. But, if we look back upon the status of our research when the Sally Moyer transcript was released, that outcome was actually predictable.
Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel). Moyer reported to an unnamed section chief, who reported to Trisha Beth Anderson, who was deputy legal counsel to James Baker.
Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications:
A review of the Moyer transcript clarifies a few aspects:
First, the DOJ/FBI team, “the small group”, specifically the legal officials who were ultimately participating in the process that permits politicization and weaponization of government intelligence systems, was also the exact same legal group who reviewed (and approved) the 2018 inspector general report into FBI conduct during the 2016 election outlining the DOJ and FBI activity.
In essence, the DOJ/FBI bureaucratic corruption is so widespread, the corrupt officials involved are the same people who are the decision-makers in the amount of sunlight the Office of Inspect General is allowed to put forth. Now the disconnect between the OIG executive summary and the body of content material makes sense:
Secondly, Ms. Moyer explains how FBI verification of the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page is essentially just making sure the citations align to show who is making the claims.
The underlying FISA application material does not need to be verified; rather the FBI source material is just accurately cited and attributed. Note that’s where Clinesmith comes in.
Ultimately what this testimony reveals is that any U.S. person can be subjected to a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant so long as the FBI (and DOJ) can accurately cite the reason for the underlying suspicion. The FBI citation is the “Woods Procedure”, and it is in this citation process where Kevin Clinesmith is said to have made false documents to support the citation(s).
Sally Moyer infers the merit of the accusation has nothing to do with the citation for the claim. However, this is where the IG report is taking issue with the FBI citation:
…Horowitz found that the employee [Kevin Clinesmith] erroneously indicated he had documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis for the application. He then altered an email to back up that erroneous claim… (link)
If he’s altering an email, it sounds to me like Clinesmith is modifying communication with an FBI source to construct a citation for a claim within the FISA application; perhaps that FBI source is Christopher Steele.
Here we go. Today is the day the inspector general closed the “Principal Review” phase of the upcoming IG report. Now is when the small group of corrupt DOJ and FBI officials -spotlighted by the IG investigation- begin trying to shape the narrative; and the leaks start with a whopper:
….An FBI official was caught altering documents within the 2016 surveillance operation against President Trump…
Keep in mind which FBI officials are now working for the media outlet, CNN, that is providing the leaks; ie. former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe; the spokesman for James Comey, Josh Campbell; a former FBI agent, Asha Rangappa; or the former FBI chief legal counsel, James Baker. All now work for CNN.
It’s important to note the media source aspect because normally this type of leak would go to the Washington Post or New York Times first; ergo, it likely stems as a personal leak to one of the former allied FBI officials now working for CNN.
Washington (CNN) – An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.
The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.
[…] Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham.
[…] It’s unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI’s investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.
[…] The identity or rank of the FBI employee under investigation isn’t yet known, and it’s not clear whether the employee still works in the federal government. No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court.
The Justice Department and inspector general’s office declined to comment. (read more)
Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe
A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.
Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe
A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.
Representative Jim Jordan appears with Bret Baier to discuss the last two weeks of impeachment testimony. Baier, the evolving human cabbage patch doll, attempts to protect the DC impeach narrative.
.
Jim Jordan is exceptional. At the conclusion of todays testimony Jordan also held a brief press conference (below).
Representatives Elise Stefanik and Steve Scalise discuss the partisan effort to remove President Trump through a one-sided impeachment effort.
.
Within the interview Ms. Stefanik notes the outside money pouring in to her district in a concerted effort to remove her from office. The link to support herIS HERE
Last week we outlined the likely schedule for all of the rapidly surfacing DC issues to include: (A) Pelosi and Schiff’s impeachment effort; (B) the IG FISA abuse report being released; and (C) the narrowing timeline of court decisions for all three of Pelosi’s impeachment committees.
Today we have some new background to help see the narrative race and legal race. Pelosi and Schiff are not only racing the impeachment vote against the IG report, they are also racing against the Judicial branch wiping out all prior “impeachment inquiry” validity.
Effective at the end of business today the House is now in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday. CNN is reporting:
The House returns on December 3rd and recesses again for Christmas break on December 12th. That is the window for Pelosi to cram in all of the House needs; eight days.
Remember, the House Democrats punted the budget with a short term CR so that has to get done. We were hopeful Pelosi would put the USMCA ratification up for a vote; however, that now appears to be off the table until 2020. So the budget and impeachment vote are inside this eight day window.
But that is not all that is inside this window.
Eight Legislative Days in December
On December 9th the IG report on FISA abuse and DOJ/FBI corruption will be released. On December 11th Michael Horowitz will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
So there are two races.
♦ One race within the Trump impeachment is for the narrative: Trump Impeachment -vs- DOJ/FISA corruption against Trump. This is the race everyone is discussing.
♦ The second race within the Trump impeachment is legal: Pelosi, Schiff and ultimately Nadler -vs- the Judicial branch. This is the race few are watching, but actually could be far more consequential because it could invalidate the entire HPSCI process.
The aforementioned mid-December House Impeachment Vote is not a vote to impeach President Trump. It is a vote at the end of their “inquiry”; and a vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin their “official” impeachment hearings.
The mid-December vote will be to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to begin the “official” impeachment hearings. Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff need this vote fast; they need this vote before they lose any court case that could make the “impeachment inquiry” invalid.
Additionally, Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need this full House authorization vote to gain the authority to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the “official” impeachment investigation. And they are hoping that any loss in the three pending cases will not undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s an issue.
That’s why Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler need to get that mid-December House vote before they lose any SCOTUS ruling. There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.
♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight. That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court; outcome pending. There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.
[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered. (link)
Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.
♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation. The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was stayed by a three member DC Appellate court. Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]
[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing. (link)
Probability of SCOTUS 100% – Probability of loss to Pelosi 80%
♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn. Issue: subpoena validity. The HJC has asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has announced she will deliver her ruling on Monday November 25th.
The House’s letter to federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in Washington points out that it is considering impeaching Trump for obstruction of justice, for which McGahn would be a key witness since he spoke to special counsel Robert Mueller for the obstruction investigation, and for lying to Mueller, after testimony at Roger Stone’s criminal trial raised questions about Trump’s written answers to investigators about Russian interference in the 2016 election. (link)
Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90% – Probability of loss 50%
Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS). The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.
Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process. The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.
The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.
If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry”, and the committee approach therein.
Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.
This is why Pelosi and Schiff are racing the court for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release for their narrative foundation.
Today begins day five of the House impeachment hearings. Testimony today will include Fiona Hill, President Trump’s top adviser on Russia; and David Holmes, a very sketchy State Department fellow whose wife, Stephanie Holmes, also works at the State Dept; holding a previous assignment with former Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovitch.
The foreign service office is one big internecine anti-MAGA network of mutually aligned career interests, and hard-core political operatives. The fiasco starts at 9:00am EDT
CNN’s Fredo decided to take the challenge. After failing miserably, the panel of pundits needs to start a round of conspiracy theory to cover the epic fail. WATCH:
Attorney General Bill Barr has vociferous praise for FBI Director Christopher Wray and his team at the premier investigative agency in the world. The FBI previously dispatched seven agents, three snipers, a full SWAT unit, two MRAP armored vehicles and an amphibious assault unit for a 5:00am raid on the home of Roger Stone.
Meanwhile the AP is reporting today how the FBI politely requested an interview through CIA agent/whistle-blower Eric Ciaramella’s lawyers last month, and the interview never happened:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI last month requested an interview with the whistleblower whose complaint fueled the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and Ukraine, a person familiar with the situation said Wednesday.
An agent from the FBI’s Washington field office reached out to the whistleblower’s lawyers last month to seek an interview about the substance of the complaint, according to this person, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the request with The Associated Press.
The person said it was clear from the FBI that the whistleblower was not regarded as the target of any investigation but rather a potential witness. It was not immediately clear what specifically the FBI might be looking into. The requested interview has not taken place. (read more)
Paul Manafort received a no-knock FBI raid at 2:00am for unregistered lobbying. The law offices of Michael Cohen were raided for Taxi medallion abuse. Roger Stone got the SWAT treatment for bragging to congress…. and the Deep State CIA “whistleblower” gets a politely worded letter that can be ignored.
Earlier today President Trump traveled to Austin Texas to participate in the grand opening of a new Apple Inc. manufacturing facility. President Trump has worked closely with Apple CEO Tim Cook to promote America-First manufacturing.
During the visit President Trump delivered remarks on current events and took questions from the traveling press pool. [Partial Video and Full Transcript Below]
.
[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. It’s an honor to be here. We’re seeing the beginning of a very powerful and important plant. And anybody that followed my campaign, I would always talk about Apple — that I want to see Apple building plants in the United States. And that’s what’s happening. And having — Tim Cook is somebody that I greatly respect — a great leader, a great businessman. And it’s a very special day. For me, this is a very special day.
Our country is doing well, probably better than ever before, certainly from the standpoint of the economy. And we’re in a state that I love: Texas.
And Tim has a couple of things to say, not only about this incredible product that is made right here — very, very unique product — but also about their expansion from this point forward. We’ve already done it up to here. But from this point forward. And the nice part: He doesn’t have to worry about tariffs. Because when you build in the United States, you don’t have to worry about tariffs. It sort of helps people make a decision to come in.
But he’s a very special person, as far as this country is concerned, because of the great job potential and the great job that he’s done. Apple is the first trillion-dollar company, and that was about a year ago. Now it’s about a trillion-three, I think you said. But Apple is doing fantastically well.
So we’re honored that you’re doing what you’re doing. We’re honored to be here with you at this special occasion. And we’ll be back. We’ll be back.
Thank you, Tim. Thank you very much.
MR. COOK: Thank you. I’d like to thank everybody for coming and joining us. And I particularly would like to thank President Trump, Secretary Mnuchin, and Ivanka, and the other members of the administration. I’m grateful for their support and pulling today off and getting us to — this far. It would not be possible without them.
What you’re seeing here — the product, the Mac Pro — is 15,000 times more powerful than the original Mac, and it can perform 56 trillion tasks per second. That’s 56 trillion tasks per second. It’s absolutely blow-away.
We cannot be more proud of the product. It’s an example of American design, American manufacturing, and American ingenuity. We want to thank everybody for coming.
And I turn it back to — oh, one other thing: This morning, we also announced a one-billion-dollar investment, groundbreaking — Rebecca was there with me for this — for a three-million-square-foot site in Austin, about 10 minutes or so away from here. So we view Austin as a very key place for the future of our company. It’s the second-largest site in the world for us, next to our home base in Cupertino.
So — and I’m hoping for, obviously, more investments to come. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: So Tim was saying, just a little while ago, that he’s starting this massive, new development also in Texas — Austin. But he’s also said something to me about the American economy because he’s, you know, all over the world. I would say there’s probably nobody that’s more over the world than Apple.
And what would you say about our economy compared to everybody else?
MR. COOK: I think we have the strongest economy in the world right now.
THE PRESIDENT: The strongest in the world.
Congressmen, please come over. Our great congressmen. And it’s great to have you. I just see you in the audience here.
REPRESENTATIVE CARTER: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: So if anyone has any questions, go ahead.
Steve, go ahead.
Q What did you make of Ambassador Sondland’s testimony this morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it was fantastic. I think they have to end it now. He said there was no quid pro quo. “The President did absolutely nothing wrong.” If you look at it — I guess you’ve seen me — I took down exactly what he said. He called and he said — he asked me where we — what should he do. I said, “I want nothing.” Then I repeated it: “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell the President” — as you know, of Ukraine — “to do the right thing.”
And then, he finished off and he said, “This is the final word from…the President of the United States.” So what did the President want? “I want nothing.” Okay? “I want nothing.”
And let me tell you, it’s a hoax. It’s a disgrace. It’s an embarrassment to our country. Nancy Pelosi has done a terrible job as Speaker. There’s never been a Speaker that’s done so little. And she’s totally incompetent. And Shift Schiff, he stands up and he tells lies all day long. And even with that — so we have no due process, we can’t have anything. And yet, not only did we win today — it’s over. And some of the fair press — of which there isn’t too much — said this thing is over.
So the President of the United States told this guy, who is no — I mean, the question I asked — and it’s the same question that a number of the congressmen have asked: Why didn’t he put this statement into his opening remarks? It’s the most important — important statement there are.
For this country, for our country to be playing this — we’re opening up massive Apple plants. We have the greatest economy in the world. We have the greatest economy that we’ve ever had in the history of our country. We have the best unemployment numbers that we’ve ever had.
But we have a fake press. We have a phony press. We don’t have freedom of the press in this country. We have a phony press. They’re dishonest, most of them. We have some fine people from — fine journalists and reporters and companies. But most of them are fake and phony. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, The Washington Post, New York Times — these are fake papers. They are fake press. And there is — they should be ashamed of themselves, and they hurt our country.
And, to be honest with you, I think it’s a great tribute to all of those people in swing states and all of those people in this country. We had an Electoral College — as you know, Congressman, we had a landslide — 306 to 223. We had a landslide. And they’re trying to take it away because they can’t do it fairly.
But these are bad people. Nancy Pelosi is incompetent. She’s gotten nothing done in Congress. And now, with their big star witness — this was going to be their star witness. Now, just so you know, I don’t know him very well. He’s a guy that got put there. He wasn’t even on my side. He came over to me — I didn’t even know that. He came over to me after I defeated other people. I defeated them all.
But you know what? What — what, really, we have to learn from this whole thing is the press. They ought to straighten out their act. Because we have the greatest country in the world but we have room to get even greater. But with a fake press, with the media the way it is, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Q Mr. President, have you considered taking any action against the whistleblower?
THE PRESIDENT: The whistleblower is not a whistleblower. He’s a fake. And everybody knows —
Q Would you fire the whistleblower? Or —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Everybody knows who the whistleblower is. And the whistleblower is a political operative. These gentlemen know it. He’s a political operative.
And, frankly, the IG should have never brought this. Because if he would have compared what the whistleblower said, if he would have compared it to what I said in the conversation — two conversations, really — but to what I said in the conversation with the President — who I think is a terrific person — of Ukraine, he would have said, “Well, wait a minute. The whistleblower said this.” And that wasn’t the conversation because we have the transcribed conversation.
And also, Shifty Schiff — he’s a dishonest — he’s a corrupt politician. When he imitated or tried to copy my conversation, he didn’t copy it. He made up a conversation. Went before Congress, and made up a phony conversation, just like he does every time he talks. He’s a phony. He’s a very dishonest, very corrupt politician.
So, instead of — and, look, the big upset, as you folks know, was when I released the transcript. Because I don’t like doing that because you have to keep this very, very classified and confidential when you’re speaking to heads of state. But I released it because Schiff and the whistleblower made up a phony deal.
And I’ll tell you what: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. The press should be ashamed and they ought to end the witch hunt right now.
Q What did you mean — what do you mean Zelensky should “do the right thing”?
Q Would you take some kind of action against the whistleblower?
Q When you say Zelensky should “do the right thing,” what did you mean by that?
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say that.
Q When you told Sondland that —
THE PRESIDENT: He’s already done the right thing, because —
Q When you told Sondland that —
THE PRESIDENT: — the President — the President — if you look — of Ukraine, and his spokesman, the Foreign Minister, they put out: “There was no pressure whatsoever.” “None whatsoever.” And you knew that. You knew that very well. But you’re fake news and you should be ashamed of yourselves, and you should change, because it’s a very bad thing for our country.
Q Do you still want Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Bidens is a whole different story. When you talk about corruption, when you have a guy that made no money, his father becomes Vice President, and all of a sudden he’s getting millions and millions of dollars from Ukraine, from China, from all of these countries — you just see two of them. This guy made nothing. He got thrown out of the Navy. He couldn’t get a job. And then his father becomes Vice President and the press doesn’t want to report it because the press is dishonest.
So I think it’s a disgrace. I think the whole thing with Biden is a disgrace.
Steve, go ahead. Go ahead.
Q Should Apple be exempt from China tariffs?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’re looking at that. And, you know, the problem we have is you have Samsung — it’s a great company, but it’s a competitor of Apple, and it’s not fair if — because we have a trade deal with Korea. We made a great trade deal with South Korea, but we have to treat Apple on a somewhat similar basis as we treat Samsung.
Now, with all of that being said, we’re doing very nicely with China, but I like it the way it is now, because we’re taking in billions and billions of dollars, and we’re giving some of that money to farmers and others. But we are looking at Apple. When I wanted Apple to do, from day one — from before I got elected — I said, “Someday we’re going to see Apple building plants in our country, not in China.” And that’s what’s happening.
It’s all happening. It’s all the American Dream. Our country has never done better. It’s doing better than it’s ever done.
Unemployment, the lowest levels. The numbers just came out today. African American, Hispanic American, Asian American, the lowest they’ve ever had in the history of our country. So we’re very happy.
Thank you very much.
Q (Inaudible) other Apple products?
Q (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Say it?
Q Will there be a trade deal in place before the end of the year?
THE PRESIDENT: So, I can tell you this: China would much rather make a trade deal than I would.
Q Then why haven’t they?
THE PRESIDENT: Because I haven’t wanted to do it yet.
Q And why haven’t you wanted to yet?
THE PRESIDENT: Because I don’t think they’re stepping up to the level that I want.
Q I spoke earlier today with Mr. Cook and he said, “Another round of tariffs would be bad for business. It would be bad for the United States.”
THE PRESIDENT: I know, but, you know —
Q Will the tariffs take effect —
THE PRESIDENT: Here — here’s what I say —
Q — December 15th?
THE PRESIDENT: Here’s what I say — here’s what I say: What do you know?
I put in tariffs, everyone said, “Oh, gee, you’re taking in billions — hundreds of billions of dollars we will be taking in.” And everybody said, “Oh, that’s going to be bad for the economy.” Well, as you just heard from Tim Cook, we have the strongest economy, by far, in the world, and we’re taking in billions and billions of dollars. So we’ll see what happens.
We are dealing with China. I have a great relationship with President Xi. They’re a great country, but we’re a greater country than China.
If I didn’t win, right now China would be a bigger economy than the United States. But because I won, we picked up — reported on your network — $11 trillion in worth, in value. And China has lost probably $25 trillion. We are much bigger than China right now, and we’re going to keep it that way.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Remember, in 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that non-union members cannot be forced to pay for union representation.
Centinel2012 