President Trump took all the ‘dragon slayers’ with him to Argentina likely anticipating a rapid Chinese evolution from Panda to Dragon.  Trump’s delegation selection sends exactly that message.  If cunning Chairman Xi exhibits wounded sensibilities, well, tough.

China deployed the panda mask for over a year in an effort to wait-out President Trump, fair enough; however, that strategy has a severe downside.

If lack of engagement is part of Beijing’s economic defense mechanism, ie. retaining the status quo,  you can expect President Trump to provoke the confrontation.

Does Xi feel rucky?

SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China and the United States can reach a trade agreement at the G20 meeting in Argentina this week, the state-run China Daily newspaper said in an editorial on Friday, but Washington must be “fair minded” if it wants to defuse spiraling tensions.

“Beijing wants a deal, just as Washington does. And it is willing to cooperate with Washington in dealing with concerns about trade if they are fair-minded,” the paper said.

“Should there be any other aspirations, such as taking advantage of the trade spat to throttle Chinese growth, then an agreement is unlikely to be reached.”

World leaders started arriving on Thursday in Buenos Aires ahead of the gathering of the Group of 20, where global trade tensions, fueled by U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war with China, are expected to dominate the agenda.  (read more)

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. Trump knows how to play their panda/dragon games.

Each time China takes aggressive action (red dragon) China projects a panda face through silence and non-response to opinion of that action;…. and then 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. Chairman Xi and President Trump are scheduled for a dinner on Saturday night; their first face-to-face meeting in a year.

The entire planet is focused on the dynamic of Chairman Xi and President Trump.  Billions waged on the position of an eyebrow, or the hint of a smile.  Epic stuff.  In the multinational finance world this is bigger than the moon landing, world cup and Olympics combined.  Every nuance and inference to be reviewed in slow-mo replay by hedge-fund managers looking for any indication of hope.

The funniest thing is Donald Trump doesn’t care about all that.  He has the desired ‘America First’ outcome gamed out; POTUS is only looking to see which direction Xi is leaning.  From there Trump puts the instructions to the team (Mnuchin, Pompeo, Ross, Lighthizer and Navarro); yet even they don’t know the full plan, no-one does except President Trump… for a reason.

The Wall Street global financial crowd is on pins-and-needles hoping desperately the confrontation between China and the U.S. doesn’t escalate.

Meanwhile, blue-collar Main Street USA is hoping ‘bull-in-a-china-shop-Trump‘ shows up and punches Xi in the nose; diplomatically of course.

Peter Navarro, Trump’s hardline trade adviser, will attend the meeting between the leaders, a U.S. official told Reuters. Another official said Navarro’s addition was meant to send a message to China about the administration’s resolve on trade. Navarro has advocated a tough stance against Beijing. (more)

President Donald Trump and Fist Lady Melania Trump arrive in Buenos Aires, Argentina, for the G20 Summit of world leaders.  Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived with the first couple met by local dignitaries.

This is one of those reports that seems small and appears way over there on the periphery. However, if MAGAnomics and trade are important to you, this story is very much worth paying attention to.

As CTH shared last week the White House reached out to EU auto executives to request a meeting.  There is a VERY STRONG likelihood the message within this meeting will surround potential tariffs, and questions from team Trump about the intents of EU (mostly German) automakers against the backdrop of the USMCA.

The potential for auto-tariffs terrifies the EU (specifically Germany), because most of their profits from within the industry come from access to the U.S. market.   Few major markets in the world can afford the scale of automobile purchases as a wealthy U.S.A. does.  The profit margins are much smaller in all other countries.  Without the U.S. market, these auto companies would be in deep financial trouble.  Enter Trump’s leverage:

BERLIN (Reuters) – Top executives from German carmakers Volkswagen, BMW and Daimler are finalizing plans for a White House meeting on trade policy next week, German and U.S. officials said on Thursday.

Officials from the carmakers, asking not to be named, said the meeting was tentatively set for Tuesday, and would include VW Chief Executive Herbert Diess, Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche and BMW production chief Oliver Zipse.

President Donald Trump has been harshly critical of German automakers and what he sees as an unfair trade imbalance on autos.

He has threatened for months to impose tariffs on vehicles assembled in the EU, a move that could upend the industry’s business model for selling cars in the United States.

However, he has refrained from such a measure while Washington and Brussels undertake talks to cut other trade barriers.

The CEOs plan to make clear they cannot negotiate on behalf of the EU, people close to the matter said last week. (read more)

I love that last line: “CEOs plan to make clear they cannot negotiate on behalf of the EU“, that’s funny; and the best part is Trump knows exactly the silliness of that statement.  Whatever the German auto-sector demands, the EU delivers – P.E.R.I.O.D.

But seriously, the primary question for the U.S. team revolves around seeking to understand how the EU companies will comply with the new U.S-Mexico-Canada  (USMCA) trade pact to avoid the import tariffs.  [Angela Merkel is irrelevant]

The answer is more important to Mexico and the U.S. because no-one is foolish enough to build a manufacturing plant in the left-wing North known as Canada.  So POTUS wants to know how the EU is going to comply with the new 75% origination rules within the U.S. and Mexico agreement.

The outcome of the EU answer(s) will likely determine the scale of tariff that President Trump is considering on the entire industry.  President Trump is actually constructing a 10/25-year economic ‘business plan‘ for the entire country.

Stay tuned…. this is the fun stuff!

President Trump delivers remarks to the media prior to departing the White House en route to Argentina for the G20 summit.  The president remarks about the plea agreement by Michael Cohen to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The New York Post has an article today, surrounding an interview with President Trump, where the topic of declassifying the evidence behind ‘Spygate’ surfaced.

To say there is a massive schism amid supporters of the President on this issue would be an understatement.

On one hand the declassification would potentially, and finally, outline the scale of the FBI/DOJ politicization and weaponization of intelligence against the President – exposing the entire ‘spygate’ scandal in all its glory.  On the other hand that potential is also seen as political leverage against the schemes of DC and all the characters.

Here’s the quotes that matter:

(New York Post) […]  “If they go down the presidential harassment track, if they want go and harass the president and the administration, I think that would be the best thing that would happen to me. I’m a counter-puncher and I will hit them so hard they’d never been hit like that.”

“I think that would help my campaign. If they want to play tough, I will do it. They will see how devastating those pages are.”

“It’s much more powerful if I do it then,” Trump said, “because if we had done it already, it would already be yesterday’s news.”

Trump added Wednesday that his lawyer Emmet Flood thought it would be better politically to wait.

“He didn’t want me to do it yet, because I can save it,” Trump said.

The president also pushed back on the notion that all the Justice Department documents should eventually be released for the sake of transparency.

“Some things maybe the public shouldn’t see because they are so bad,” Trump said, making clear it wasn’t damaging to him, but to others. “Maybe it’s better that the public not see what’s been going on with this country.”  (more)

From the CTH perspective this interview essentially solidifies something we have been outlining for several months: President Trump is applying the consideration of leverage to his decision-making.

Many have refused to accept “leverage” was part of President Trump’s primary determination and decision-making.  CTH has been heavily criticized for even presenting such analysis.  Hopefully, this interview puts an end to those criticisms.

Leverage is the primary filter here; and it’s not just leverage against domestic political enemies.

President Trump has fifty years of business skills in various predatory and adversarial financial deals.  Leverage, or the ability to force an opponent to take an action that benefits your position, is the most valuable weapon in deals; business or politics the same is true.

This type of leverage is extremely valuable and it’s not just against Democrats, Obama and the Never Trump alliance (ie. Sea Island group).  President Trump is in a fight against multiple enemies from all sides, across all aisles and political alignments.  The declassification leverage is like an atomic hammer that strikes everyone in a 360° blast radius.

And it is not limited to domestic adversaries.  This leverage has a geopolitical value.

Think about geopolitical trade deals with Five-Eyes allies.  Think about how President Trump may need an ally to take a position adverse to their preferred interests. The potential for declassification of intelligence documents showing complicit corruption within the U.K. and Australia could destroy politicians external to the U.S.

Think about an ally being asked to take a position on China (trade), Iran (sanctions), Russia (energy), etc.  Movement on any of these geopolitical issues, and many more, can be tilted -in part- based on the threat of sunlight or declassification. Leverage is a tool.

Getting particular democrats to support the USMCA; what’s that worth?

Getting a southern border wall and sensible immigration law; what’s that worth?

What does President Trump value?  What is important to him?

What part of the transactional relationship can be enhanced by leverage?   Pro-tip: it’s not personal; it is not leverage to benefit Trump personally; he doesn’t care about that shallow stuff… his view of the horizon is much longer, much further; much more consequential.

It annoys the heck out of many people, me included, that Donald Trump is willing to absorb so much inbound fire, unnecessarily; which, by extension, means that his supporters are forced to absorb so much inbound and unnecessary fire; but he is.

What is President Trump’s primary objective?   Save the U.S.A. through economics.

Economic security is national security.

I think much of our angst is because we look too short-term; and the media does a great job of convincing us President Trump is selfish.  Perhaps they are correct. Perhaps I’m wrong; but I see this leverage issue as something Trump views as important – obviously; or he wouldn’t approach it that way.

Would President Trump trade a $500 billion per year positive benefit to the U.S. economy in exchange for never outlining the fraud against him?

Would President Trump accept new jobs for a million Americans in exchange for never outlining the 2016 fraud against him?

Yeah.

He would.

Without question.

And he wouldn’t care if it meant he could never win in 2020.

He ain’t a politician.

Piss you off?

Probably.

That’s Trump.

The issue is basic to the construct of the USMCA (NAFTA replacement).

BMW made a multi-billion-dollar investment in Mexico in anticipation of exploiting the NAFTA loophole.  President Trump has closed the loophole.  The new USMCA agreement requires 75% of automobile parts made in North America; and 45% must come from plants with minimum labor costs ($16/hr), or face tariffs upon export to the U.S.

As a result BMW is now considering opening those higher-wage component supply operations in the U.S.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – BMW (BMWG.DE) is considering a second U.S. manufacturing plant that could produce engines and transmissions, Chief Executive Harald Krueger said on Tuesday, shortly after a report that U.S. President Donald Trump would impose tariffs on imported cars from next week

[…] BMW is considering changes to U.S. operations as sales in the region grow, Krueger said. BMW has a U.S. vehicle assembly plant, in South Carolina, is planning to open a Mexico factory next year, and is considering changes to its current scheme of importing engines and transmissions.

“We’re at the range where you could think about a second location” in the United States, he said, adding that such a factory would provide a natural currency hedge. (more)

Oddly enough we predicted this likely move in August: […]  At the 30,000 ft level, the USMCA deal positions Mexico to retain their current multinational investments; and through a series of sector-by-sector standards on origination the deal simultaneously closes the fatal NAFTA loophole.  The agreement makes an economic manufacturing partnership between the U.S. and Mexico; and for assembly products third parties will have to produce parts and origination material within the U.S. and Mexico.

U.S.T.R. Lighthizer put some details forward:

♦The NAFTA Loophole closure is explained in Summary Form HERE; with emphasis on the Auto-Sector.  The key is a 75% part origination level for auto-assembly; and a 40-45% level for parts with a minimum $16/hr wage rate.  The source-origination rate (75%) is even higher than all previously forecast negotiation results.

Example of downstream consequences/benefits:  German auto-maker BMW recently built a $2 billion assembly plant in Mexico (almost complete).  Most of their core parts were coming from the EU (steel/aluminum casting components) and/or Asia (electronics).  Now the assembly plant will have to source 75% of the auto-parts from the U.S. and Mexico, with 45% of those parts from facilities paying $16/hr.  Result: BMW will need to modify their supply chain and build auto parts in the U.S. and Mexico.

(USMCA LINK to Article 32 pdf)

Prior to the USMCA both Canada and Mexico structured key parts of their independent trade agreements to take advantage of their unique access to the U.S. market.  Mexico and Canada generate billions in economic activity through exploiting the NAFTA loophole.  China, Asia (writ large), and the EU enter into trade agreements with Mexico and Canada as back-doors into the U.S. market.  So long as corporations can avoid U.S. tariffs by going through Canada and Mexico they would continue to exploit this approach.

The NAFTA loophole was/is a zero-sum issue: Either Can/Mex agree to give veto authority to the U.S. –OR– President Trump had no option to exit NAFTA completely. Well, Canada and Mexico agreed to the former, so there was no need for the latter.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivers remarks to the media following a briefing of senators on Capitol Hill.  The media was primarily focused on the issues surrounding the murder of Kashoggi; and the opportunity to create a wedge issue for the Trump administration.

Many Decepticon senators, benefactors from Qatari (Muslim Brotherhood) financing against the policy of Saudi Arabia, are aligned with left-wing opposition to the President on this issue. Instability in the middle-east is a very lucrative business model for personal financial gain.

A small but interesting development in the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico highlights a backstory CTH suspected several months ago {Go Deep}. August 25th:

As USTR Robert Lighthizer was working with the trade officials representing outgoing Mexican President Peña Nieto, White House adviser/emissary Jared Kushner was quietly working behind the scenes with AMLO trade adviser Jesus Seade and outlining the possibilities if they partnered with strategic economic objectives in mind.

As a result of Kusher’s dogged efforts to bring an entirely new dual-nationalist ‘focus’ within the trade construct, removing the historic globalist baseline, the outcome of the trade deal is excellent for both the U.S. and Mexico.  So today:

MEXICO – […] Kushner will receive the prize “for his contributions to achieve the negotiation of the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA),” according to a statement by Mexico’s Foreign Relations Secretariat.

Peña Nieto will present Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, with the award on Thursday at the Group of 20 summit in Argentina, according to the Reforma newspaper.

“Mr. Kushner’s participation was a determinant factor to start the process of renegotiation of [the North American Free Trade Agreement], avoiding a unilateral exit by the United States from said treaty, and his constant and effective involvement was key in achieving a successful close of negotiations,” reads the official statement on the award.

It’s likely to be Peña Nieto’s last major act as president, as he is due to hand over power to President-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador on Saturday. (read more)

It will take time for Mexico to withdraw from prior corrupt agreements with multinational corporations who have invested in exploitative enterprise and bribed corrupt Mexican officials.   President Trump is EXACTLY the guy AMLO needs to help guide him through a complex business and economic process of extracting his country from the tentacles of economic exploitation.

BACKSTORY CTH September 2018: […]  Previous Mexican Presidents structured economic policy around accepting multinational corporate investment, facilitating the requests of Wall Street investment banks, and the predictable parasitic outcomes that follow. Exfiltration of wealth and exploitation of resources/labor are an outcropping of predatory multinational trade exploitation, ie. “globalism”.

Retention of the multinational schemes generally leads to massive corruption. In the U.S. this corruption is known as “lobbying”, in Mexico the process is called ‘bribery’; however, the activity is the same.

The incoming Mexican President, Lopez-Obrador (AMLO), is more of an economic nationalist; and quite remarkably his economic outlook, at least as his team has described the objectives so far, is quite Trumpian.

You might even say: “Make Mexico Great Again”.

Both U.S. President Trump and Mexican President-elect AMLO have similar outlooks toward predatory multinational corporations and economic exploitation. If you think about how Mexico was used by the multinationals in the past twenty years; and then think about a very real possibility of a U.S President and Mexican President having an economic friendship; well,… holy cats, those multinationals could be remarkably nervous right now.

AMLO supports labor and has an actual agenda to create a strong working-class or middle-class.  The wealth disparity within Mexico has always been a foundational issue that has led to a tremendous amount of corruption.

Similarly, President Trump supports labor.  Likely because of his positive relationships with labor unions as a private sector builder, Trump was the only republican candidate who advanced pragmatic opinion toward organized labor in 2015, 2016 and, as president, in White House meetings where he invited labor officials.  President Trump’s economic agenda is laser focused on a strong middle-class.

AMLO views Wall Street multinationals as predatory by disposition; Mexico has suffered from industrial exploitation, especially in the agriculture sector.  President Trump also views those same multinationals as tending toward predatory behavior, and he has targeted many specific corporations for attention due to their participation in the erosion of the American middle-class and the U.S. manufacturing base.

AMLO is a strong Mexican Nationalist. President Trump is a strong American Nationalist. Within almost all of President Trump’s foreign policy speeches on economics, he openly accepts that all nations should make decisions based on their individual and nationalistic needs.  Trump does not see economic nationalism as adversarial; he points out that trade agreements based on both interests are entirely possible, and actually easy to construct.

As long as AMLO stays away from the authoritarian tendencies of power, ie. government ownership of private industry – and the slippery slope of soft-Marxism, surprisingly he and President Trump are likely to have a great deal more in common than most would think. Both populists; both nationalists; both rebuke the elitist trappings of globalism and intend on executing economic policies for the majority of their citizens.

Because they have more in common on the economics of policy, this explains why the framework of the U.S-Mexico trade agreement between Robert Lighthizer (representing Trump) and Jesus Seade (representing AMLO) was possible to construct.

Lighthizer and Seade held long meetings after formal U.S-Mexico daily negotiations, and together this relationship appears to have been very important in how the deal framework was structured. Right now both teams are filling in the details based on common objectives.

With AMLO and President Trump, Mexico and the U.S. have joint-interests in an economic trade bloc. It is actually quite stunning when you think about the economic power that both nations can hold if their mutual and individual interests remain at the forefront.

President Trump and President Lopez-Obrador have common objectives; and with the economic approach outlined by AMLO toward using Mexico’s energy resources as leverage for expanded investment, the U.S. is well positioned to help.  Mexico needs independent collateral to break the cycle of dependency on overseas money (investment).  Mexico needs policies and partners that can make Mexico, and the Mexican people, independently wealthy.   Guess who the bestest partner would be?  Yup, President Trump.

President Trump is well positioned to assist Mexico via a united trade bloc with expanded cross-border investment for economic development.

AMLO wants a higher standard of living for Mexican workers; President Trump wants greater parity between Mexican workers and their U.S. counterparts. Heck, it was U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and USTR Robert Lighthizer who first proposed raising the Mexican minimum wage. Now both countries have agreed to an incremental Mexican minimum wage aspect of $16/hr within the auto sector.

Combining the wage aspect with the content and origination agreement, this has become a win/win for both AMLO and President Trump. The multinationals within the auto-sector might not like it, but they’ve already put a massive amount of money into plant and manufacturing investment in their existing Mexican footprint. They have no choice.

In an generally overlooked outcome the nationalist interests of Mexico, specific to AMLO, are very close to alignment with the nationalist MAGA agenda of President Trump.

The U.S. economy is expanding at an unprecedented rate, and Mexico prepares to surf the MAGAnomic tsunami known as Donald Trump.

President Trump can see that independent economic future for Mexico based on a partnership that protects the interests of both nations.  It certainly appears that AMLO can see the same vision.

Remarkable times.

UPDATE: Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith easily wins: 55-45

The Mississippi Senate Seat of retired senator Thad Cochran will be decided today as Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith and Democrat Mike Espy have a runoff today.

Mississippi has a history of sketchy political power schemes between professional democrats and professional republicans that often crosses party boundaries. The outcomes are often under the control of a few big money interests; ie. “The Big Club”.  That said, polls in Mississippi close at 8:00pm EST.

New York Times – Election Results Here

Decision Desk HQ – Election Results Here

American Pravda, aka The Washington Post, interviews President Trump in an effort to engineer the latest set of deep state sympathetic narratives. Here’s the transcript:

Phillip RUCKER: Thanks for taking some time with us. We wanted to start with a couple topics in the news today. Afghanistan, three troops were killed overnight in that roadside bomb. Can you explain why 17 years later we’re still there? Why are Americans still fighting there?

President TRUMP: We’re there because virtually every expert that I have and speak to say if we don’t go there, they’re going to be fighting over here. And I’ve heard it over and over again. We’re in the process of doing some — you know, as you know we are talking about peace over there with the Taliban, with the group of people that have a lot to do with it. They would like to see it after all these years, and we’ll see what happens. A little bit too early to say what’s going to happen. But we are talking about things. But it’s a very sad situation when I look — we have incredible people, incredible fighters. But we’re going to see what happens. We’re going to see what happens. But it’s very sad. I just heard about the three people this morning. Terrible.

RUCKER: Are you going to make it over there to Afghanistan?

TRUMP: At the right time I will.

RUCKER: Before Christmas, you think?

[TRUMP speaks off the record.]

DAWSEY: Last night, Mr. President, the special counsel’s team charged Paul Manafort with saying, they accused him at least of saying more lies, and ended his plea deal. People around you have told me you’re upset about the way he’s been treated. Are you planning to do anything to help him?

TRUMP: Let me go off the record because I don’t want to get in the middle of the whole thing.

[Trump speaks off the record.]

DAWSEY: Is there any version of that you’re willing to give us on the record in answer to that question?

TRUMP: I’d rather not. At some point, I’ll talk on the record about it. But I’d rather not.

[Trump speaks off the record.]

RUCKER: Mr. President, everyone in Washington is talking about whether there is going to be a shutdown by the end of the year and what you would do to have a deal – what kind of terms you would set. And we’re wondering, what would you accept from McConnell or offer to McConnell in order to get some border wall funding before the year is over?

TRUMP: We think we need it – we don’t think; we desperately need a wall. –

RUCKER: But what would a deal look like?

TRUMP: I think that’s been shown better than ever in the last short period of two weeks – that we need a wall. I see the Democrats are going to want to do something, because they understand too. Those pictures are very bad for the Democrats. We’re not having a wall because of the Democrats. We need Democrat votes to have a wall. Now, if we don’t get it, will I get it done another way? I might get it done another way. There are other potential ways that I can do it. You saw what we did with the military, just coming in with the barbed wire and the fencing, and various other things.

RUCKER: So it’s the Democrats’ fault that — what’s happening at the border over the weekend with the tear gas and the families trying to rush over?

TRUMP: No, it’s the Democrats’ fault that we don’t have a wall, because they never gave us the vote. They just wouldn’t give us the vote.

We almost had a deal, except when – I mean, actually, it wasn’t their fault, wasn’t our fault, it was on DACA. We almost had a deal, and then the judge ruled shockingly in favor of Obama’s signature, when even Obama said what he’s doing is not legal. Essentially, he said, it’s not going to hold up. But when the judge ruled, all of a sudden it was like, that’s the end of that deal. But we were very close to having a deal — $25 billion for a wall and various other things on the border. And DACA. And when the judge shockingly – you know, the Democrats never thought they were going to win that, and then you had another couple of judges rule, and then you had judges rule the other way. It’s going to be settled I assume in the Supreme Court. But we were close to having a deal on DACA until that ruling.

DAWSEY: Is there anything specific that you would take from McConnell for — to end this fight?

TRUMP: It’s not a question of take from McConnell. McConnell is a friend of mine. We get along great. We’ve had a fantastic relationship. We’ve had a big success. We’ve had a lot of success. Hopefully today we’ll have another success [in Mississippi]; we’ll see happens.

TRUMP: I did 4’oclock, 9 o’clock and one in the middle. Based on the enthusiasm we saw there I think we’re going to do very well, but we’ll see. I know one thing: If she loses, I’ll be blamed, and if she wins, I’ll be given no credit. That’s the only thing I know.

But anyway, do you guys want something to drink?

DAWSEY: We’re okay, thank you.

TRUMP: Go ahead.

DAWSEY: You said yesterday when you were leaving that you were skeptical of a climate change report that the government had done. Can you just explain why you’re skeptical of that report?

TRUMP: One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including – just many other places — the air is incredibly dirty. And when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. I mean, we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with.

Number two, if you go back and if you look at articles, they talked about global freezing, they talked about at some point the planets could have freez to death, then it’s going to die of heat exhaustion. There is movement in the atmosphere. There’s no question. As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it — not nearly like it is. Do we want clean water? Absolutely. Do we want clean air to breathe? Absolutely. The fire in California, where I was, if you looked at the floor, the floor of the fire they have trees that were fallen, they did no forest management, no forest maintenance, and you can light — you can take a match like this and light a tree trunk when that thing is laying there for more than 14 or 15 months. And it’s a massive problem in California.

DAWSEY: So you’re saying you don’t see the —

TRUMP: Josh, you go to other places where they have denser trees — it’s more dense, where the trees are more flammable — they don’t have forest fires like this, because they maintain. And it was very interesting, I was watching the firemen and they’re raking brush — you know the tumbleweed and brush and all this stuff that’s growing underneath. It’s on fire and they’re raking it working so hard, and they’re raking all this stuff. If that was raked in the beginning, there’d be nothing to catch on fire. It’s very interesting to see. A lot of the trees, they took tremendous burn at the bottom, but they didn’t catch on fire. The bottom is all burned but they didn’t catch on fire because they sucked the water, they’re wet. You need forest management, and they don’t have it.

RUCKER: Mr. President, there’s a lot of economic news, too.

TRUMP: Yes, we’ve got a lot of news there.

RUCKER: The gains from the past year in the stock market, many of them, there’s been a correction. GM is closing some of its plants, laying off a lot of their workers. You said when you campaigned in Michigan that none of the plants would close and now one of them will. —

TRUMP: No, no, but we have plants moving in, too. We do.

RUCKER: — So what are you going to do about this, and are you nervous about a recession occurring?

TRUMP: No, I’m not because what I’m doing is I’m doing trade deals. The trade deals take a little time. The fact is I think — I disagree with the Fed. I’ve been open about that. I think the Fed is a much bigger problem than China. I think that China wants to make a deal very badly. I think we’ll either make a deal or we’ll be taking in billions and billions of dollars a month in tariffs and I’m okay with either one of those two situations. But I can tell you that China wants to make a deal. I can tell you that other countries want to make deals because they know that I’m not playing around. The USMCA was a very well-received deal. That got done and a lot of people said it wouldn’t get done. We’re making great trade deals. We lose $800 billion a year with trade.

RUCKER: So who should be held responsible? You mentioned the Fed, but when Harry Truman sat here he had that sign that said the buck stops here. —

TRUMP: Oh, I’m not blaming anybody.

RUCKER: — But Mr. President, it doesn’t seem to stop with you.

TRUMP: I’m not blaming — look, I took recommendations. I’m not blaming anybody. But I will tell you, at this moment in time I am not at all happy with the Fed. I am not at all happy with my choice. I think we have to let it go. You know, if you look at — China is being accommodative. The Euro and Europe is being accommodative. We’re not getting any accommodation, and we’re also paying $50 billion, we’re paying down our liquidity, is — you can make the case it’s a positive thing in one way, but another thing it snaps your liquidity. So I’m doing deals and I’m not being accommodated by the Fed. I’m not happy with the Fed. They’re making a mistake because I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.

RUCKER: But you’re the president, sir.

TRUMP: I’m not blaming anybody.

RUCKER: Okay.

TRUMP: I’m just saying, I’m not happy with the Fed. So far, I’m not even a little bit happy with my selection of Jay. Not even a little bit.

DAWSEY: Mr. President, you’re —

TRUMP: And I’m not blaming anybody, but I’m just telling you I think that the Fed is way off-base with what they’re doing, number one. Number two, a positive note, we’re doing very well on trade, we’re doing very well — our companies are very strong. Don’t forget we’re still up from when I came in 38 percent or something. You know, it’s a tremendous — it’s not like we’re up — and we’re much stronger. And we’re much more liquid. And the banks are now much more liquid during my tenure. And I’m not doing – I’m not playing by the same rules as Obama. Obama had zero interest to worry about; we’re paying interest, a lot of interest. He wasn’t paying down — we’re talking about $50 billion lots of different times, paying down and knocking out liquidity. Well, Obama didn’t do that. And just so you understand, I’m playing a normalization economy whereas he’s playing a free economy. It’s easy to make money when you’re paying no interest. It’s easy to make money when you’re not doing any pay-downs, so you can’t — and despite that, the numbers we have are phenomenal numbers.

DAWSEY: Mr. President, your national security team is going to the Hill tomorrow to brief senators on Saudi Arabia and Jamal Khashoggi. I’ve heard from Senator Graham, who I know you were with yesterday, and others, that they want stronger punishment on Saudi Arabia, tougher sanctions. Do you want them to impose that or do you think that would be deleterious to our —?

TRUMP: I’m going to listen to what they say. They’re all friends of mine and I get along with them great. I’m going to certainly listen to what they have to say, Josh. In the end, though, they’re spending massive amounts of billions of dollars. If you look at Iran and what they do, and you look at many other countries – I don’t have to embarrass other countries by saying it – if you look at what they do, it’s a rough part of the world. It’s a dangerous, rough part of the world. But they’ve been a great ally. Without them, Israel would be in a lot more trouble. We need to have a counterbalance to Iran. I know him. I know him well, the Crown Prince. And, by the way, never did business with them, never intend to do business with them. I couldn’t care less. This is a very important job that I’m doing right now. The last thing I care about is doing business with people. I only do business for us. Somebody said, well, maybe they’re an investor in one of his jobs. The answer is no. But I just feel that it’s very, very important to maintain that relationship. It’s very important to have Saudi Arabia as an ally, if we’re going to stay in that part of the world. Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel. Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.

RUCKER: Sir, do you hope to meet with the Crown Prince when you’re in Argentina at the G-20 later this week?

TRUMP: Well, it’s not scheduled, but I certainly would. But it is not scheduled.

RUCKER: And why have you taken his denials for ordering the killing of our colleague, Jamal Khashoggi —

TRUMP: I haven’t taken anything.

RUCKER: — over the evidence that the intelligence community has gathered?

TRUMP: Phil, I haven’t done that. If you look at my statement, it’s maybe he did and maybe he didn’t. But he denies it. And people around him deny it. And the CIA did not say affirmatively he did it, either, by the way. I’m not saying that they’re saying he didn’t do it, but they didn’t say it affirmatively. I’m saying this: We have $52-a-barrel oil right now and I called them about three months ago, before this whole thing happened with Khashoggi, and I let him have it about oil. We were up to $82 — probably two and a half months ago — we were up to $82 a barrel and it was going up to $100 and that would’ve been like a massive tax increase and I didn’t want that. And I called them and they let the oil start flowing and we’re at $52. In fact, now I’m being blamed for traffic jams. This was the greatest. Actually in the Palm Beach Post, they had a thing that I’m causing traffic jams because they have the –

DAWSEY: I wondered what paper that was. I saw you tweeted that.

TRUMP: It’s the Palm Beach Post.

SARAH SANDERS: Guys, we have just maybe one more question.

RUCKER: Sir, you just said, maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, but are you getting the best advice and the best information from the intelligence community and on the climate issue from your experts in the government, because you’re doubting what they’re saying?

TRUMP: Phil, I’m getting advice. I’m the president of this country. I have to do what’s the best for our country. We have a very important ally in Saudi Arabia. We have an ally that has tremendous oil reserves, which are — frankly they can make prices go up and down, and I want to keep them down. We have an ally that’s investing billions and billions of dollars in our country. They could very easily invest $110 billion, $450 billion overall over a period of time, fairly short period of time. $110 billion in military. Russia and China would love to have those orders and they’ll get them if we don’t. They’ll have no choice, but they’ll get them if we don’t. So I take everything into consideration, and again, he totally denies it, and he denied it to me on three different occasions, on three different calls, and a lot of other people deny it, too. Did he do it? As I said, maybe he did and maybe he didn’t, but in the meantime Saudi Arabia’s spending billions and billions of dollars in the United States, and I want them to spend it here. I don’t want them to spend it in China and Russia.

DAWSEY: You’re scheduled to meet again with Vladimir Putin at the G-20. Do you think he was within his rights to challenge the Ukrainian ships? Do you —

TRUMP: I am getting a report on that tonight, and that will determine what happens at the meeting. I’m getting a full report on that tonight. That will be very determinative. Maybe I won’t have the meeting. Maybe I won’t even have the meeting. We’re going to see. But depending on what comes out tonight, we should have a pretty good indication on exactly what happened tonight at about 6 o’clock.

RUCKER: Should that aggression concern people here?

TRUMP: I don’t like that aggression. I don’t like that aggression at all. Absolutely. And by the way, Europe shouldn’t like that aggression. And Germany shouldn’t like that aggression. You know they’re paying 1 percent, and they’re supposed to be paying much more than 1 percent.

RUCKER: So are they not doing enough? TRUMP: They’re absolutely not doing enough. Germany? Absolutely not. Many of those countries are not doing enough toward NATO. They should be spending much more money.

RUCKER: I know we’re short on time, but we would just love to get your thoughts on the Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker over at the Justice Department.

TRUMP: He’s a fine person.

RUCKER: Has he been fully briefed on the Mueller investigation, the status of that?

TRUMP: That I don’t know.

RUCKER: And has he talked to you about it?

TRUMP: I can tell you that Matt Whitaker is a respected man. He’s doing an excellent job. We’re looking at possible attorney generals right now. And within — I will tell you, within the Justice Department he is a highly respected person, and he’s doing a very good job. I also think he’s a very good person. I think he’s a very good person. And he had a reputation for being, I think he was six years in Iowa as the U.S. attorney. He had a reputation for being very strong, very smart, very good.

DAWSEY: Has he talked to you about the Mueller investigation at all?

TRUMP: We don’t talk very much. I mean, I haven’t spoken to Matt very much. I put him there. But we speak really very little. The Mueller investigation is what it is. It just goes on and on and on.

RUCKER: Would you commit right here to letting Mueller continue his work until the investigation concludes?

TRUMP: This question has been asked about me now for –

KELLYANNE CONWAY: A thousand times.

TRUMP: — almost two years. And in the meantime, he’s still there. He wouldn’t have to be, but he’s still there, so I have no intention of doing anything.

SANDERS: Alright. Thanks, guys.

TRUMP: Okay? Thank you, fellas.